On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Naveen Nathan nav...@lastninja.net wrote:
I'm attempting to retire a cisco 6509 setup, replacing it with an EX4200
virtual chassis configuration (8 linecards). I've run into a warning
when
Yes, this is a BNT switch. Juniper have zero plans to adapt this switch to
run JunOS. In fact, as it stands, the EX2500 will have no L3 functionality
(according to
Juniper), whereas if you get this from BNT directly, you will see additional
features. That, alongside the fact that JunOS
At this time!? Try never.
Olive is NOT a JunOS or Juniper router emulator! Olive is JunOS
running naively on standard x86 hardware without a PFE. So you get
all control plane features but no forwarding plane features. Good for
testing some BGP policy or OSPF config, but beyond that it won't
This is a common problem. Essentially, Cisco creates a separate SA for each
subnet pairing (i.e Proxy-ID). Therefore since there will be multiple
Proxy-IDs which you need to support, the Route-Based VPN is pretty much out
of the question, as you've surmised. You can use a policy-based VPN
What are you doubting? That you have to do it? That it's absolutely
necessary? That Cisco is better in it's implementation that allows ip
addresses in the main interfaces config?
The idea is not to think about it as a subinterface but to think of it of
where the layer 3 configuration is at.
Does anyone know if JunOS supports IPv6 as the outer header for GRE or
IPinIP tunnels?
For example:
gr-0/0/0 {
unit 1 {
tunnel {
source 2001:1234:4561::1;
destination 2001:1234:4561::2;
}
family inet {
address 10.1.10.2/30;
}
08/17/09 05:21:01 I am not sure of the exact time, but I know that It should
be in version
10 of Junos.
Did they mention what it would be increased to?
-Brandon
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sure. If you are coming from a Cisco world you can think of virtual-router
as vrf-lite. It's not MPLS attached and just used as a seperate routing
table and don't require RD or import/export. VRF would be a traditional
MPLS L3 VPN instance.
HTH,
Brandon
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:36 AM,
Does this mean that ScreenOS will no longer be used in the future?
Not right away, no. Although I wouldn't bet on it in the long term.
-Brandon
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Has this certification been launched??? can any one provide the
outline/Info
for this please.
Rumor is that they are going to make a JNCIE-SEC which will be SRX based.
The JNCIE-ER will then encompass just routing and switching (M,J,EX) and
probably be renamed JNCIE-ERS or something
' to repartion the
primary boot media.
Thanks,
Brandon Bennett
Accuvant
Sent from my mobile.
On Jul 31, 2009, at 7:06 AM, Andrea Montefusco and...@montefusco.com
wrote:
It is possible to restore an M7i to 'brand new' state ?
(Like ios write erase and reload)
Thanks in advance
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org wrote:
Considering the idea of 5 48 port EX4200 switches with 10GE uplinks in a
ring type setup or use the 5m cables on the back to do the same and save
the 10GE ports on the front. The two end switches would have GigE
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:35 AM, david@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
I think so but I can't see any input TCP sessions by using tcpdump on the
box. I will try to put a specific term in my loopback firewall filter to
catch the source addresses (if there are) !
Do you have a terminal server
. To remove the PIC you will have to remove
the adjacent PIC and pull from behind (there is no ejection mechanism)
HTH,
Brandon Bennett
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
I've heard a rumor that the knob to switch pack to packet-based is available
in 9.5 again. In the mean time the work around is to enable MPLS on your
interfaces and do packet-based forwarding for mpls.
Let me see if I can dig up the exact details.
Brandon
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Ben
Multicast addresses are explicitly prohibited by RFC 1812 in section
3.3.2:
A router MUST not believe any ARP reply that claims that the Link
Layer address of another host or router is a broadcast or multicast
address.
This doesn't, however, apply to static arp entries. Cisco
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Ivan c [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further to that query, can anyone suggest an appliance that fulfils
both client-less SSL and IPSec VPN modes?
Cisco ASA can do both.
-Brandon
___
juniper-nsp mailing list
Pardon my ignorance, but do the high-end Cisco platforms do NAT
without any specialized hardware?
7200 - Software based so yes. (Probably more comparible to a J4350 or
J6350 anyway)
7600 - Hardware accelerated NAT in the PFE
ASR1000 - Hardware accelerated NAT
GSR 12k - Requires the MSB
On the 7600 and the ASR1000, is that hardware accelerated NAT a
default option, or are those add-on features?
On both the 7600 and the ASR it is in the base images and ready to
just configure. Crazy for Cisco, I know. You'd think they'd milk
another license out of you somewhere. :)
-Brandon
with
an Olive. With my Qemu patch you can do full routing protocols and
even network to a dynamips instance or even PEMU.
HTH,
Brandon Bennett
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
When using 10 or 100. There is no such thing at 1000-half (at least
defined in the standard).
~Brandon
On 10/1/07, Sabri Berisha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:51:22PM +0900, usacox wrote:
Hi,
Thank you for your reply.
I configured same setting both interfaces
no plan to move to Modular IOS.
Brandon Bennett
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
on your admin group
Scroll down to TACACS+ Settings
Check mark junos-exec and custom atrributes
Add the lines listed on the page in the previous email
(ie: local-user-name=admin)
Submit
HTH,
Brandon Bennett
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5
23 matches
Mail list logo
