n, 22 Jul 2018 at 20:23, Andrey Kostin wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for answering. All routers have family inet6 configured on all
> participating interfaces, because other v6 traffic is forwarded without
> MPLS, so we are safe for that.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrey
>
&
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 21:00, Andrey Kostin wrote:
>
> Hello juniper-nsp,
>
> I've accidentally encountered an interesting behavior and wondering if
> anyone already seen it before or may be it's documented. So pointing to
> the docs is appreciated.
>
> The story:
> We began to activate ipv6 for
On 30 April 2018 at 11:23, Dan Peachey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to get IPv6 VRRP working between two ACX5048 running JunOS
> 15.1X54-D61.6 and so far failing.
>
> I have configured it as per the following example:
>
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US
Hi,
I'm trying to get IPv6 VRRP working between two ACX5048 running JunOS
15.1X54-D61.6 and so far failing.
I have configured it as per the following example:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/example/vrrp-for-ipv6-configuring-example.html
Although not mentioned in the ab
On 28 September 2016 at 14:47, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On 28 September 2016 at 16:38, Johan Borch wrote:
>
>> Will router-target-family work even if it is cisco in one end?
>
> Yes, IOS supports route-target SAFI.
>
> --
> ++ytti
Hi,
I may be missing something, but shouldn't the default behaviour
On 19/02/2016 10:53, Alexander Marhold wrote:
Hi
You wrote:
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that routers need indirect-nexthop
feature enabled
IMHO exactly this is also called PIC (prefix independent convergence) so to
be exact to get a prefix amount independent convergence yo
On 11 January 2016 at 18:53, Michael Hare wrote:
> j-nsp,
>
> I'd to deploy 6PE on an existing dual stack network so that native IPv6
> prefixes can take advantage of path benefits MPLS has to offer. In my
> setup it seems that traffic from PE1 to PE2 [PE2 router id: x.x.32.8] is
> being load ba
Hi,
I just hit an issue where I tried to configure 2000 VLAN's on a LAG and got
the error message "Too many VLAN-IDs on interface". If I remove the
interface from the LAG I am able to configure all the VLAN's without issue.
Based on the unit number that threw the error it seems like the number of
Hi Adam,
My understanding was that you might be able to oversubscribe only using PIR
> (need to test).
> And in that case all the queues are in the excess region.
> So only the excess priorities are honoured (HI and LO in strict priority
> fashion) and queues with the same priority are serviced ro
On 25 June 2015 at 15:48, Marcin Wojcik wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> > Seems odd to me that this needs to be done. Documentation I've read
> appears
> > to suggest that in PIR mode (no guaranteed-rate set) the per-queue
> > guarantee/transmit rate is calculated from the shaper rate and when a
> queue
> >
On 24 June 2015 at 21:05, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On 24 June 2015 at 22:29, Dan Peachey wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> > I thought the weights were determined by the %? The weights are then used
> > to schedule the queues appropriately. Even if the queues are in excess,
> > the
On 24 June 2015 at 19:09, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2015-06-24 16:08 +0100), Dan Peachey wrote:
>
> Hey Dan,
>
> > class-of-service {
> > traffic-control-profiles {
> > 10M {
> > scheduler-map 10M_COS;
> > shaping-rat
>
> Hey Dan,
>
>
> > I must be missing something, but it seems that regardless of what I set
> as
> > a temporal buffer, the byte buffer value assigned doesn't appear to
> change.
>
> Can you give
>
> CLI config (TCP, shaper and queues)
> show cos halp ifl X
> show qx N tail-rule Y 0 0
> show qx N
On 23 June 2015 at 17:43, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I don't have access to any JNPR box right now, so can't give exact command.
>
> But as you're using QX for scheduling, you'll need the chipID, and
> L2/L3 index, and taildrop index, then you can use 'show qx ..' to
> fetch the size of the tail, which w
Thanks Steven and Saku, that's what I was looking for.
Dan
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi all,
I have an IFL on a 10G interface configured with a traffic-control-profile
that has a 10M shaper and references a scheduler-map with 5 queues. The
platform is MX960 with MPC2E-3D-Q linecard.
I would like to find out the per-queue buffer sizes as configured on the
PFE in bytes. Is there a
Hi Adam,
Try embedding it in a TCP, like so:
class-of-service {
traffic-control-profiles {
SHAPER {
scheduler-map SCHEDULER;
shaping-rate 4m;
}
}
interfaces {
ge-1/3/0 {
unit 0 {
output-traffic-control-profile
On 2 June 2015 at 21:15, Chris Adams wrote:
> I have used policers on units to limit the traffic for a particular
> VLAN, but now I have a need to limit the total traffic on an interface.
> I have a gigE link that is telco-limited to 500Mbps (but I need to
> police the link so I don't put more th
18 matches
Mail list logo
