Does anyone know what this file is for? I only find it on my EX4500
VCs. I guess it is good that it doesn't run, because otherwise it
looks like it would powerdown the system 2 minutes after it finished
booting up.
{master:0}
root@ex-4500 file list detail /config/rc.d
/config/rc.d:
total 12
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:43:23AM +1000, Ben Dale wrote:
Hi Nicolas,
On 29/07/2012, at 8:25 PM, Nicolas DEFFAYET nicolas...@deffayet.com wrote:
Is it a know issue that SNMP is broken in 11.4R4 for EX ?
It is indeed broken - you're most likely hitting PR 782231 (which is hidden),
but
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 06:23:36AM +, Paul Zugnoni wrote:
It had its limitations, though:
* This was on 10.1. No ISSU available, so couldn't set a high SLA
* No SNMP polling was available then of the fiber VC ports. If you had
issues with dirty fiber or weak signal, you'd have to find
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 08:15:59PM -0700, Naveen Nathan wrote:
To manually specify the members for each downstream switch trunk port
requires a significant amount of administrative overhead. I would prefer
each trunk port just allow all the vlans.
Doesn't that mean you are effectively always
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 09:27:29AM +1000, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 04:57, Piotr Szlenk piotr.szl...@gmail.com wrote:
Try this one. This should provide info about current code on both
partitions on EX series.
show system snapshot media internal
Thanks for that Piotr.
fxp vs. em is just FreeBSD nomenclature for the type of device driver
used by the kernel to drive the hardware device. There is no other
semantic meaning tied to fxp vs. em than that. Some hardware uses
the fxp driver, some uses the em driver.
From FreeBSD manual pages:
fxp -- Intel
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:25:18PM +0530, vaibhava varma wrote:
In the Juniper EX-4500 series switch if we are using a LAG say ae1 and
want to run dot1q peering on it with MX-240 upstreams is it necessary
to create the L2 VLAN also in the Switch e.g
set interfaces ae1 vlan-tagging
set
protocols mstp msti 1 vlan 3042
set protocols mstp msti 2 ...
set protocols mstp msti 2 ...
set protocols mstp msti 3 ...
set protocols mstp msti 3 ...
But I haven't tried a L3 config like yours, so it may work with
MSTP...
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:26:27AM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27
Is it possible to reuse a Type2 MS-PIC in an MX-FPC2? Or is upgrading
to the MS-DPC the only option? This would be used for stateful
firewall and perhaps some NAT.
Thanks.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:11:43AM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2012-01-10 07:26 +0100), Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 04:02:14PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
FWIW they've actually had serious problems interoperating correctly with
copper SFPs from other vendors,
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 04:02:14PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 09:34:35PM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
Like I said, that is nuts. I will NEVER buy the QFX then as long as
this vendor arrogance exists. And don't give me this but we
haven't tested
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 01:26:19PM -0500, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
We just received our first QFX3500s, and contrary to what the Juniper
SE told us, they will not work with non-Juniper optics. Is there some
clever, undocumented means of using third-party optics in these
switches? JTAC says it
,
Jim Glen
Chief Engineer
CODONiS, Inc.
12201 Tukwila International Blvd.
Seattle, WA 98168
On Jan 6, 201216, at 2:59 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 01:26:19PM -0500, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
We just received our first QFX3500s, and contrary to what the Juniper
SE
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 01:04:37PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 07:45:40 AM Jim Glen wrote:
I've done this on both the EX-4200...
I'm curious what the switch would do, in this case, if you
wanted to drive some IP phone or wi-fi AP's via PoE, as DC
power
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 08:54:11PM -0500, Brendan Mannella wrote:
www.mail-archive.com/juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net/msg11424.html
My fear is if i reconfig to the old style, eventually when code
catches up, i will then have to reconfigure everything to the new
style.
I don't think the old
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 04:45:26PM -0500, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
Dear List, and Juniper lurkers!
The EX4200s we have been purchasing lately are coming with Junos
11.2R1.2 installed from the factory. That version is totally
Are these the old EX4200-48P, or the new PoE+ EX4200-48PX models? The
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 12:37:22PM -0800, David wrote:
Don't have a PR, but we've got MC-LAG working on MX960s, the documentation
is sketchy on what options are needed, and in my case we were missing the
switch-options service id command on both boxes, which caused l2ald daemon
to core dump. I
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 02:57:04PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Thursday, October 20, 2011 11:52:32 AM Chuck Anderson
wrote:
This is why when given a choice I always like to design
L2 networks to not require dynamic protocols where
possible. E.g. rely on autonegotiation's Remote Fault
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:05:58PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
We configured LAG's with LACP and our EX4200 couldn't load
balance any of the traffic.
While those links discuss how the box performs load sharing,
it isn't actually configurable at all, nor does it work. The
issue also affects
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 01:29:37PM +1300, Tim Harman wrote:
Have just encountered a situation where a 1GB/s customer sending me
~800Mb/s of traffic caused a number of Aggregated Interfaces running
LACP on EX series switches to start flapping.
...
Anyone encountered anything like this before?
It appears to be settable:
{master}[edit interfaces irb unit 10]
mx# set bandwidth ?
Possible completions:
bandwidth Logical unit bandwidth (informational only)
After setting to 10g, it changes:
Logical interface irb.10 (Index 36) (SNMP ifIndex 70) (Generation 15)
Flags:
Has anyone tried third-party CWDM SFP+ 10gigE transceivers in MX Trio
or EX4500? A quick Google search turns up many vendors I haven't
heard of:
Optoway
Optospan
Prosfp
Fiberise
Eoptolink
Ftth-china
eNet Components
Transition Networks
and some I have:
MRV
Omnitron
With varied prices in the
With 10.4R3 and newer dual-root partitioning feature, on initial
upgrade most of my EX switches formatted upgraded both the primary
and alternate root slices correctly. However, subsequent upgrades
don't appear to keep those in sync and you need to do:
request system snapshot media internal
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 07:16:19PM +1000, Julien Goodwin wrote:
On 08/11/11 19:00, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:29:23PM -0400, Rakesh Shetty wrote:
What I got from juniper is that the enhanced SCB will only be
supported in 11.4 which is April 2012.
We're hearing
On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 10:42:05PM +0200, Peter Krupl wrote:
On an MX running 10.4 the snmp agent supports the OID:
jnxBgpM2PeerRoutingInstance.
After days of research it still can't figure out how to figure out which VRF
each bgp peering belongs to.
Can anyone shed some light on this ?
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 09:40:21PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Chris Evans chrisccnpsp...@gmail.com said:
I'm trying to implement a firewall filter to implement IPv6 RA guard on an
EX4200. I have the ACL written to block DHCP and icmp router-advertisements.
However it
From the 10.0 release notes:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.0/information-products/topic-collections/release-notes/10/topic-39004.html
Basic Procedure for Upgrading to Release 10.0
In order to install JUNOS 10.0 or later, you must be running JUNOS
9.0S2, 9.1S1, 9.2R4, 9.3R3,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 08:22:57PM -0700, Michel de Nostredame wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Martin T m4rtn...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the difference between request system halt and request
system power-off under JUNOS? Is there a possibility to completely
turn off the router
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:27:55AM -0400, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
syntax changes to preprovisioned (no hyphen), yet this is not caught
by verify. The box will be unusable after it upgrades. EX boxes,
and their spectacular upgrade failures, have justified my OOB
facilities many times over in the
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:12:22PM +0100, ibariouen khalid wrote:
show route :
10.41.2.32/30 *[OSPF/10] 18:49:01, metric 4
*to 10.41.144.6* via ge-1/1/0.0
via so-1/3/1.0
show route table GG_jk
10.160.31.10/32*[BGP/170] 6d 01:17:54,
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:21:31PM +0200, martin papik wrote:
can I block (drop) router advertisemet (RA) only on specific ports in
EX2400 (EX2200) configuration.
The problem is in security, because when any station (PC, notebook)
connected to LAN, starts own (but not official!!!) RA, I thing
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 09:18:00AM -0700, Keith wrote:
So on a non production box, just sitting in the rack, powered
up for a little more than 8 weeks, passing no traffic at all,
it's on the 3rd MPC and 2nd MIC.
Try this on...we had to RMA a newly-installed-in-production MX960-ECM
chassis
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 03:48:11PM +0300, Martin T wrote:
Gabriel,
the question is, what does JUNOS bandwidth-limit 10m count into this
10m. Only they application payload? L4 header as well? Or even the
IP header? If I send UDP traffic with 10Mbps and router policer
bandwidth-limit 10m drops
On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 02:14:12PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 08:23:31PM -0400, Jesus Alvarez wrote:
Is there a way to change the SSH port for managing the EX switches and M
routers? We normally avoid using the standard port 22.
No. I've been asking for that
On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 03:35:59AM +0800, shasi kumar wrote:
Hi,
We migrated a trunk connection from Cisco 7206 to MX480. All the BGP session
was up for a while goes down. The following is the error message in MX480
(10.2R2.11):
rpd[1358]: task_connect: task BGP_remoteAS.a.b.c.d.14+179
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:43:35PM -0400, Chris Evans wrote:
Has anyone here tested ipv6 multicast on the EX4200 platform to only find
that it doesn't forward IPv6 multicast when IGMP-SNOOPING is enabled? I
found a bug for this on the EX8200 series 10.4 release saying it was fixed,
but the
The JUNOS PR search tool says 456700 is fixed in 10.4R3. Have you
taken the R3 plunge yet?
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 08:14:39AM -0400, Chris Evans wrote:
Yeah that simple piece works fine for me, its just host to host multicast
that isn't working. Point in case DHCPv6 doesn't work. The hosts
from ip-version isn't a valid match type on EX4200 / 10.4R3.
I've re-opened a JTAC case on this as well.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 09:19:03PM -0400, Chris Evans wrote:
http://forums.juniper.net/t5/Ethernet-Switching/IPv6-multicast-not-forwarding-when-IGMP-SNOOPING-is-enabled/td-p/82812
This
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 06:17:08PM +0100, Henri Khou wrote:
I have a Juni EX-4200 with an out-of-band management interface
configured. It works like a charm.
Then I needed to connect to my switch through the Internet so I have
treied to connect via ssh to a l3-interface but I failed
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:58:28AM -0700, Keith wrote:
I was doing some stuff to our MX the other day and our SFP's that came
with the MX when we got it are recognized as NON-JNPR:
FPC 0REV 13 750-031087 YE3588MPC Type 1 3D
CPUREV 06 711-030884
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:24:13PM -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Daniel Roesen [d...@cluenet.de] wrote:
Though I'm looking forward to the day when Virtual Chassis comes to MX
which will allow us to eliminate spanning tree and perhaps sidestep
many of these weird looping issues.
And then
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 09:43:43AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
I have an EX2200 switch that cannot talk to one of my recursive DNS
servers. The switch is in subnet a.b.c.0/27, while the DNS IP is in
x.y.z.0/29. The DNS IP is anycasted, and the primary server serving it
is in the same
-nsp] RE : SNMP if-mib stops responding
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 08:51:01AM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
10.4R2 is even better for MX Trio I'm told...I plan on upgrading to it
soon.
We were planning on going to 10.3R3, but it seems to be eternally
delayed, and 10.3R2 definitely has some
10.4R2 is even better for MX Trio I'm told...I plan on upgrading to it
soon.
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 06:22:20PM -0800, Doug Hanks wrote:
10.2S6.3 is a good build.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 08:50:05AM -0800, Doug Hanks wrote:
Unless you need a feature from 10.4, such as LLDP, there's really no reason
to upgrade yet.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chuck
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 06:27:29PM +0200, Amos Rosenboim wrote:
Hello all,
This morning one of our MX routers stopped responding to SNMP if-mib queries.
It responds nicely to other SNMP queries.
The SNMP responses simply arrive empty.
Restarting SNMP does not help.
We are running 10.2R3.
Restarting PFED fixed my issues too. Thanks for the pointer.
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:50:36PM +0300, Tarique A. Nalkhande - BMC wrote:
NUMBER566681
SYNOPSIS show interface statistics stuck, show pfe statistics traffic
returns an error
david@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
We
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 07:54:26PM +, Bill Blackford wrote:
I'm looking to duplicate or closely proximate the VLAN RVI
functionality currently used on a LAN switch over to a MX80. Is
there a best accepted practices or any examples available for doing
this? There seem to be a lot of
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 04:01:45PM -0500, Paul Stewart wrote:
Just wanted to write back to the list and say THANK YOU! I had already
created a policy very similar to what you had suggested - but - when I added
it to the outbound policy for the upstream I didn't pay attention to the
order it
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:43:24AM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Dear Juniper,
I will deploy one of these on every router until all my cases are
resolved. :)
http://cluepon.net/ras/juniper-accessory.wmv
Watch out for those reset buttons--very easy to hit.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:47:10PM -0500, David Lockuan wrote:
Hi guys,
I was testing the hidden command of JunOS, monitor traffic write-file
name_files interface xx-X/X/X. In theory, this files is with format
tcpdump but when I try to see with Wireshark, it don't show me on detail of
the
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 02:55:30PM -0500, Keegan Holley wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Christoph Blecker cblec...@gmail.comwrote:
Current Juniper recommended JUNOS versions are available here:
https://www.juniper.net/customers/csc/software/junos_software_versions.jsp
Thanks
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 04:31:59PM +0400, Muhammad Rehan wrote:
2) vcp-255/1/0.32768
now i am unable to understand this 255 which is replaced by 0 (
xe-0/1/0 vcp-255/1/0 ) and secondly what is purpose of
VCP-255/1/0.32768
Logical units 32768 are automatically created on most
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 12:09:16PM +1300, TiM wrote:
Has anyone seen an issues where, once a stack looses power (all at once,
sadly), some members of the stack come up with corrupt JunOS on them?
Yes, I've seem this happen. The moral of the story is make sure you
have good UPS battery backup
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 12:55:17PM +1300, TiM wrote:
On Thu, October 7, 2010 12:50 pm, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 12:09:16PM +1300, TiM wrote:
Has anyone seen an issues where, once a stack looses power (all at once,
sadly), some members of the stack come up with corrupt
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 06:16:17PM -0400, Clarke Morledge wrote:
Does anyone know how to configure a GRE tunnel on the MX platform withOUT
a Multiservices DPC?
I *thought* that you can somehow steal resources from a line card to
create a GRE tunnel on the MX, but I have not found an
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 02:17:14AM -0700, Kaj Niemi wrote:
On 12/8/2010 12:01, sth...@nethelp.no sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
We have tested these two commands, both in daily build versions of
JunOS and in 10.0S7.1 where it is implemented. These commands seem to
do the job, even if they don't
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 06:20:38AM -0700, Kaj Niemi wrote:
On 12/8/2010 15:33, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote:
1. MX shouldn't require Option 82 (relay-agent-option) in order to
function as a stateless DHCP Relay Agent (BOOTP Helper), but it does.
2. MX shouldn't get confused
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 06:46:03AM -0700, Bill Blackford wrote:
I just received a pair, individually set the root-auth and sys login
info, then attached VCP cables, powered back up and as stated had to
create the config. Interfaces on the second FPC.
As a side note: I also noticed that
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:40:54AM +0200, Tim Vollebregt wrote:
I'm getting errors when changing to this configuration. It is only
possible to use encapsulation vlan-bridge on unit 0. And when I
change it to unit 0:
messageVLAN Encapsulation: Not allowed on untagged interfaces/message
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 03:46:41PM +0200, magno wrote:
Today Trio only supports the old style config. in the near future, the
new style config will be supported as well.
I have several problems with the way Juniper handled this:
1. The configuration commits without any warnings or errors.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 06:52:14PM +0200, Tim Vollebregt wrote:
We have just received a Juniper MX80 and are building the configuration.
The machine is running Junos 10.2 R1.8
The issue we are experiencing is that the IRB interface seems to be
not working, although it seems to be configured
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 01:05:41AM +0200, John Wilkes wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
Your direct test I would expect to fail; pulling the TX fibre will cause the
far end to signal fault and bring the entire link down.
Yes, the far end.
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 08:55:36PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 01:05:41AM +0200, John Wilkes wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk
wrote:
Your direct test I would expect to fail; pulling the TX fibre will cause
the
far
You could also put your production traffic into a VRF (not a logical
system). Not sure if MS-DPC will work for VRFs (routing-instances).
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 03:54:15PM +0800, Chen Jiang wrote:
You cannot put fxp0 into VRF but could put it into a logical system. And
logical system also
It's not about using the line cards. It's about keeping the fxp0
routes separate and isolated from the production routes. If you
happen to have overlapping address ranges between your production and
management subnets, you will have a problem that fxp0 routes will
interfere with production
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 04:35:40PM +1000, Dale Shaw wrote:
Has anyone had problems with EX4200s and filesystem corruption
relating to ungraceful power-downs, routine reboots (i.e. for JUNOS
upgrades or whatever), or anything else? Does anyone know of any
tricks to access a switch in this state
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 05:51:18PM -0400, Mark Kamichoff wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 03:04:04PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Has anybody else noticed problems with the Juniper support website and
the Google Chrome browser? At least for the last couple days (and
maybe longer) it
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 06:13:42PM +0300, Emil Katzarski wrote:
I have a switch EX3200-48T with quite simple L2 config. Once in a
while I can see some MAC addresses learned on the correct interface
and VLAN, but then (less than a second later) the MAC is deleted.
I can also see the Immediate
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 02:09:47PM -0400, Jose Madrid wrote:
I am setting up some new devices at a physically separate data center
and am seeing some weird OSPF behavior. In order to get the default
route injected, I setup this new DC as a stub area (area 0.0.0.1) and
For some reason,
set neighbor w.x.y.z disable-4byte-as
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:03:55PM +0545, khagendra dhakal wrote:
Dear all,
Platform: M10i
JUNOS: JUNOS 9.2R2.15
Platform: Maipu 2800
IOS: rp8-i-6.1.37(xnwt-11).bin), version 6.1.37
PROBLEM: Has anyone had any bad experience on bgp peering
I recommend the Avocent Cyclades Advanced Console Servers (ACS) line.
The run on Linux, can log to local RAM as well as PCMCIA flash,
syslog, etc. and come in 1, 4, 8, 16, 32, or 48 port varieties, AC,
dual-AC, and DC powered.
http://www.avocent.com/Products/Category/Serial_Appliances.aspx
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 02:07:56PM -0400, alaerte vidali wrote:
I am getting the following behavior: an iBGP route is hidden on local router
if advertising iBGP router is ABR OSPF NSSA with no-summaries configured.
Removing the no-summaries on neighbor results the route is installed.
See
routes for that links as intra area or of same level and
that way it will not be an issue? Any comment?
Thanks,
Devang
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote:
R1 has no active local aggregate 10.0.0.0/8 route, nor any 10/8 route
in IGP (due to being
R1 has no active local aggregate 10.0.0.0/8 route, nor any 10/8 route
in IGP (due to being in a NSSA no-summaries area which only has a
default route for reachability to other areas) or nor any 10/8 route
in BGP, so it can't advertise 10/8 to EBGP peers as required.
To rememdy this, one could:
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 04:35:15PM -0400, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
Anyone run any EX3200/4200 boxes with 10.1 yet? How good/bad is it?
10.1R1 is a lot of ones :)
Need to police some CCCs, and it looks like I need 10.1 for that.
Got it running on two lab switches and no major disasters yet...
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 08:26:21PM +0500, Fahad Khan wrote:
Does EX 8208 require Industril Socket for Power , just like Cisco 6500 ??
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/reference/specifications/ac-power-ex8200.html
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 12:24:53AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
Until trio cards start getting deployed, there is pretty
much no reason why any sensible network would be running
10.x on an MX today.
Or any platform, for that matter, I say.
Well, I've had pretty good luck with 10.x on
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:30:08PM -0400, David water wrote:
Hi All,
I guess there are multiple way of changing next-hop attribute to self. One
write import policy with next-hop-self and apply under EBGP group, other is
write export policy under IBGP group and other is at neighbor level.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:05:38AM -0700, snort bsd wrote:
Hi all:
I have a router with internal CF in it. I upgraded JUNOS to version
8.5R4.3 but i noticed the hard drive still stay at the old version
of code. is there any way i can reverse it operation; copy the new
code from the
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 05:33:36PM -0700, Tony Redstone wrote:
4) Set next-hop to a different self IP on routers D E. Ensure they
aren't LDP labelled. (kind of the inverse of using separate loopback
IPs for LDP)
problem: more loopbacks to configure and manage and network
design not
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 03:48:21PM +0100, Wouter van den Bergh wrote:
Mar 22 16:14:20 chas[796]: link 1 SFP receive power low warning set
Mar 22 16:14:40 chas[796]: link 1 SFP receive power low warning cleared
Does anyone know how I can link this to the interface these messages come
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:57:55AM -0500, Eric Van Tol wrote:
Both MTUs are consistent and always have been. I started out with
9216 physical MTU and 1500 inet MTU, but have since just deleted the
custom MTU and went with the defaults. I am quite sure now that
this is not an MTU issue,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:51:33PM -0500, Eric Van Tol wrote:
Sorry for responding to my own post here. Another helpful tip came
in to use 'point-to-point' in the ISIS config, which had been
brought up before but never tried. It appears that this actually
works. The person who suggested
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:55:29PM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:57:55AM -0500, Eric Van Tol wrote:
Both MTUs are consistent and always have been. I started out with
9216 physical MTU and 1500 inet MTU, but have since just deleted the
custom MTU and went
And now 10.0S3.1 is out with yet more fixes, but not yet on the
recommended releases page. Wee!
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 11:06:19PM -0800, Dan Farrell wrote:
We use 10.0S1.1 in a heavy production environment (750+ RVI's across
21 downstream switches in a two-stack VC chassis setup) with no
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:43:57PM -0700, Sergio D. wrote:
Only the first few hellos are padded, please see link from Jeff Doyle's ISIS
OSPF book:
http://gyazo.com/1b872a14f35bd27f859a722ecc3849c5.png
(I have a hard copy of that book as well)
I was testing with a not-yet-up adjacency,
From 9.6 release notes:
Class E addresses—The JUNOS Software now allows Class E addresses to be
configured on interfaces. To allow Class E addresses to be configured on
interfaces, remove the Class E prefix from the list of martian addresses by
including the [edit routing-options martians
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 07:53:41AM -0500, Eric Van Tol wrote:
MX960:
xe-1/2/0 {
vlan-tagging;
mtu 9192;
unit 1 {
vlan-id 1;
family inet {
mtu 1500;
address x.x.x.99/28;
}
family iso;
}
}
Can you try configuring
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 11:06:16AM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 07:53:41AM -0500, Eric Van Tol wrote:
MX960:
xe-1/2/0 {
vlan-tagging;
mtu 9192;
unit 1 {
vlan-id 1;
family inet {
mtu 1500;
address x.x.x
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 09:40:04AM +0300, Muhammad Rehan wrote:
For DHCP server i simply enable DHCP relay on both site,but i have a
confusion regarding IP phones.
(In normal scnerio I just enter a TN number on my IP phone and it
automically gather all info from Call manager when I pluged IP
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 09:26:57AM -0600, Onam Rubio wrote:
I have 2 BGP session with the same ISP but one of this one is for
the local BGP to save internet traffic, and the other one is for
internet redundancy I need to have but session running but my
advertisement goes for both of them to
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:13:33PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
$10 says they just don't want to devote the QA cycles to testing every
possible combination of every version. Given that QA clearly has better
things to be doing with their time, I guess I don't mind that much. :)
Their
Juniper recommends not upgrading more than 3 releases, but 8.5 to 9.3
would be a 4-release upgrade (9.0 - 9.1 - 9.2 - 9.3). Has anyone done
this with success? It seems strange to me that Juniper wouldn't test
and support an upgrade from one E-EOL release to another without
having to jump
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 01:55:21PM -0600, Kevin Hunt wrote:
I just logged in and 8.5r4.2 seems to be the same build I have now, which is
prior to 01/2009.
Anyone gotten any word on a fix for it ? We don't want to upgrade to 9
because of the possible removal of the GE-SX-B drivers and the
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 03:14:17PM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 01:55:21PM -0600, Kevin Hunt wrote:
I just logged in and 8.5r4.2 seems to be the same build I have now, which is
prior to 01/2009.
Anyone gotten any word on a fix for it ? We don't want to upgrade to 9
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 03:53:16PM -0600, Jay Hanke wrote:
The EX is a different animal, I think there is only support for DOM
on the XFP ports unlike the MX where it is supported on all the SFP
and XFP ports. Also, I think DOM support is recent (10.0?) on the
EX.
No, DOM works on SFP on
No, DOM works on SFP on EX4200 with 10.0.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 05:56:42PM -0600, Jay Hanke wrote:
Does it also work on a non uplink module ie EX 4200-24F?
Not sure. I don't have any EX 4200-24F's.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 03:48:37PM +0300, Walaa Abdel razzak wrote:
Hi
We have the following config:
groups {
re0 {
re1 {
apply-groups [ re0 re1 ];
Do you also have a separate master-only IP defined? E.g.:
show configuration interfaces fxp0
unit 0 {
family inet {
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 09:08:40PM +0200, Jason Alex wrote:
Dear All,
I have configured a new Policy statement in my configuration , i
want to test it in the current routing table before applying it to a BGP
Peer as an export policy
In cisco you can test a route-map before
201 - 300 of 347 matches
Mail list logo
