Hi Rob,
As per RFC, bridges must appear to EVPN PEs as a LAG. In essence, you need to
configure MC-LAG (facing EVPN PEs) on the switches facing EVPN PEs, if you have
multiple switches facing EVPN-PEs. Switches doesn’t need to be from Juniper, so
MC-LAG on the switches doesn’t need to be Juniper
Hi Rob,
You have effectively created L2 loop over EVPN, so to cut it you need a
link between bridged network and EVPN to be a single link. There is no STP
in EVPN.
If you need two physical connections to between those networks, then LAG is
a way to go. MC-LAG or virtual chassis can be configured o
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Krzysztof Szarkowicz wrote:
Hi Rob,
RFC 7432, Section 8.5:
If a bridged network is multihomed to more than one PE in an EVPN
network via switches, then the support of All-Active redundancy mode
requires the bridged network to be connected to two or more PEs using
Hi Rob,
RFC 7432, Section 8.5:
If a bridged network is multihomed to more than one PE in an EVPN
network via switches, then the support of All-Active redundancy mode
requires the bridged network to be connected to two or more PEs using
a LAG.
So, have you MC-LAG (facing EVPN PEs) co
I've been experimenting with EVPN all-active multihoming toward some large
legacy layer 2 domains, and running into some fairly bizarre behavior...
First and foremost, is a topology like this even a valid use case?
EVPN PE <-> switch <-> switch <-> EVPN PE
...where both switches are STP root b
I thought that was the case, I couldn't find it either, thanks for the
validation.
I'll just spin up some iperf3 instances and beat on the network that way.
-Matt
On 4/17/19, 11:58 AM, "Emille Blanc" wrote:
Page 6 of the SRX300 series datasheet states in the fineprint;
16* "Throug
Yes only MX
(https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/rfc2544-benchmarking-test-overview.html
) and ACX
(https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/services-rpm-rfc2544-benchmarking-test-overview.html
) appear to have generator capabilities.
See al
Page 6 of the SRX300 series datasheet states in the fineprint;
16* "Throughput numbers based on UDP packets and RFC2544 test methodology."
That said, I don't see RFC2544 generation and reflection explicitly stated
anywhere, nor do I see the config syntax supported up to 15.1X49-D160.2
Juniper KB
Hello,
I have a customer WAN with 20ish SRX300s & 1 MX80 connected and need to setup
RFC2544 to prove out the WAN circuits.
Is RFC2544 supports on the SRX in later JunOS versions?
I don’t want to go through the process of upgrading the OS and not get access
to the feature.
Current versions r
Also it's now different again. Because Linux KVM running FreeBSD
guest. Lot of things are very slow now due to the Linux=>FreeBSD
limit.
And then again different with Junos Evolved.
But certainly LC_CPU doing something else and needing to send ICMP
towards RE will cause some jitter. Of course man
For those of you interested in all the details around how the transit as
well as host-inbound and host-outbound traffic is handled on juniper MX3D
Trio architecture I'd recommend reading the following FREE book in its
entirety.
https://www.juniper.net/us/en/training/jnbooks/day-one/networking-tec
11 matches
Mail list logo
