We switched to Zabbix in a previous job I had. It was pretty good. We monitored
Juniper SRX/MX/PTX, ScreenOS, IOS, IOS-XR, Brocade, and plenty of servers too.
Never had an issue with it.
Darren O'Connor
www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
From: juniper-nsp <juniper-
We are currently using QFX5100s for a new deployment.
VCF, l2, mstp, ospf, bgp, lacp
There are a number of bugs. Most are getting fixed. I'm currently running the
absolute latest version simply to get the fixes I need.
The biggest issue at the moment is that the QFX boots with all ports UP, even
This will go up to 32, I believe in release 15. I'm checking with my SE now
though
From: dim0...@hotmail.com
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:09:42 +
Subject: [j-nsp] Virtual Chassis Fabric question
Today VC fabric is limited to 20 nodes, does anybody know if
32 member stack are available now on 14.1X53-D10 btw
From: darre...@outlook.com
To: dim0...@hotmail.com; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:07:35 +
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Virtual Chassis Fabric question
This will go up to 32, I believe in release 15. I'm checking with
How many TCP flows are you sending? At those speeds I feel -P 5 or -P 10 helps
a lot. What's the window size on your receiver as well?
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:18:04 +0100
From: johan.bo...@gmail.com
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] TCP
Hi!
I'm doing some performance
Annotate is a great feature, but just be aware that a show | display
set will NOT show annotates! Be aware if copying config from one to
another...
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 18:49:35 +0300
From: asadgard...@gmail.com
To: harri_mak...@yahoo.com
CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re:
Which version of spanning tree? I've got MST running on SFP-Ts running without
issue
From: richih.mailingl...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:41:02 +0200
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] Spanning tree RJ45 SFP on QFX5100
Dear all,
we are not done debugging yet, but
to 4300 make sure you have auto negotiation turned off
on the 4300 (but that would probably fail with a juniper branded dac as
well so unlikely to be the issue).
On Sep 29, 2014 6:43 AM, Darren O'Connor darre...@outlook.com wrote:
Anyone having any luck with this? I've got a few QSFP DACs
Anyone having any luck with this? I've got a few QSFP DACs that work perfectly
fine on a 4300 stack, but the QFX5100 refuses to work with them. Work fine with
a Juniper branded DAC.
___
juniper-nsp mailing
on
the 4300 (but that would probably fail with a juniper branded dac as well so
unlikely to be the issue).
On Sep 29, 2014 6:43 AM, Darren O'Connor darre...@outlook.com wrote:
Anyone having any luck with this? I've got a few QSFP DACs that work perfectly
fine on a 4300 stack, but the QFX5100 refuses
I was testing some Juniper VCs today and seeing some odd stuff. I have a two
member stack. In a show interfaces I can see all interfaces. When I try and
view certain protocol states on interfaces I can only see the VC master
interfaces.
As an example if I do a show dot1x interfaces, I can only
Figured something out.
ge-1/0/0-47 had no config under them. Then again, neither did ge-0/0/0-47
As soon as I put some config under ge-1/0/47 (like family ethernet-switching) -
that particular interface now showed up in the show command. ALL ge-0/0/*
interfaces show up always though. Putting
I'm running 12.2r7.7 on an MX80 and I'm seeing very high cpu on the tfeb and
fpcs. However when logging into the tfeb the CPU is 'idle' for the majority of
the time. The time reported is 100% though. It's not actually affecting traffic
forwarding. I've logged a jtac case but wondering if anyone
Yes my bad. 12.3R7.7
Still shows the same. No issues forwarding traffic:
root@mx80 show chassis tfeb
TFEB status:
Slot 0 information:
State Online
Intake temperature 42 degrees C / 107 degrees F
Exhaust temperature58 degrees C
12.2r7.7
From: olivier.bengh...@wifirst.fr
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 14:24:19 +0200
To: darre...@outlook.com; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Hi Darren,
do you have inline sampling/Jflow/IPFIX configured ?
If so, you may hit PR671136.
Olivier
Le 4 sept. 2014 à 14:02, Darren O'Connor darre
A small topology diagram would help so we could figure out exactly what this
interface points to. Not sure if its in the path or not. If it is, then the
below comments already state what the problem is.
Thanks
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:52:02 -0700
From:
Running 12.1x44 on a number of SRXs without major issues
Thanks
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
From: juniper-...@grahambrown.info
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 14:47:59 +1200
To: ty...@adap.tv
CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 12.1X for SRX
Hi Quoc,
Just to add
I've been hearing for years that quicker convergence is coming 'in a later
release'
Thanks
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
From: sc...@granados-llc.net
To: euang+juniper-...@lists.eusahues.co.uk
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:40:29 -0400
CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re:
I do need the full Internet feeds for other reasons, but I am interested
in the option to filter routes between RIB FIB to keep my FIB smaller,
but send the full table downstream. What JUNOS knob does that?
Create a policy matching specific BGP routes and export into the forwarding
table,
indirect-next-hop doesn't help with two distinct directly connected BGP
neighbours unfortuantely. It only really helps with iBGP neighbours in which
the protocol next-hop stays the same but the path to that next-hop changes
Thanks
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
Date: Thu, 14 Aug
indirect-next-hop doesn't help with two distinct directly connected BGP
neighbours unfortunately. It only really helps with iBGP neighbours in which
the next-hop remains the same but the path changes to that next-hop
Thanks
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014
You mean to say you're not using /64 on your subnet?
Thanks
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:45:03 +0200
From: lca...@unix-scripts.info
To: ashish.s...@gmail.com
CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] SRX IPv6 VRRP
On 12/08/2014 14:49, ashish
This was how I set up the last ISP network I worked on. All PE's had dual REs
and P routers only had a single. The P's already have a back up in that there
is another P router. Many customers only had a single link to a PE so the
failure of an RE in that box would be catastrophic.
I must
Can't you just set the ip mtu on both sides?
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
On 10 Mar 2014, at 15:35, Skeeve Stevens
skeeve+juniper...@eintellegonetworks.com wrote:
Hey all,
We know Juniper has the issue where they do not support MTU Ignore on OSPF.
So I am wondering if anyone has
You could shape outbound on each side. If you do police the customer could just
shape outbound from their end which would prevent drops
Thanks
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:58:39 +
From: m...@geordish.org
To: lamusiqueduhas...@gmail.com
CC:
No problems. I've had fibre/copper LACP channels at the same time as well. As
already noted, the L1 tech is irrelevant. Only the speeds need to match.
Thanks
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:52:39 +0200
From: lca...@unix-scripts.info
To:
I have one spare, working, AC PSU for an old M10. I am however located in the
UK.
Thanks
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:16:41 -0400
From: c...@wpi.edu
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] M5 or M10 AC power supplies
I have an old M10 (not
To: darre...@outlook.com
CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Hello,
IMHO there is mess with docs/terms. FEC 128 multihoming as described has
nothing to do with ldp. It's bgp signaling and autodiscovery.
Krasi
On 8 September 2013 22:37, Darren O'Connor darre...@outlook.com wrote:
Hi list
128-routing-instances instance-name protocols vpls site site-name
multi-homing
For FEC 129-routing-instances instance-name protocols vpls multi-homing
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Darren O'Connor
Sent: Tuesday
Hi list.
I'm going over the VPLS multihoming options on Juniper's web site. I'm not
concerned with LAG and MC-LAG for the moment.
As far as I'm aware, FEC128 is when you are using manual discovery of
pseudowires (LDP) - FEC129 is when you are using BGP auto-discovery.
Juniper techpub for
Does anyone know if this is supported on branch SRX devices yet? The only thing
I can find is a thread from two years ago stating 'we are working on it' -
http://forums.juniper.net/t5/SRX-Services-Gateway/Terminating-q-in-q-on-a-SRX220h/td-p/104350
I'm trying to get the equivalent of the Cisco
Not exactly. allocate global host-routes will allocate a label for any /32
prefix. While this should only be your loopbacks, it will catch any /32 route
including static routes etc...
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
From: e...@atlantech.net
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Date: Thu,
You could run VRRP on R1 and R2 giving R1 the higher priority. Have the static
default on the SRX3600 pointing to the VRRP IP
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
From: barakat-ah...@hotmail.com
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 13:16:49 +0300
Subject: [j-nsp] IP
What I do is limit the ability to SSH in via certain interfaces only. i.e.
create an interface-set which allows SSH, as long as it comes in on certain
interfaces (fxp0, one or two transit interfaces)
Any subinterface pointing towards a customer is not added to the list, and
hence any
Hi all.
If you do a show krt status there is a 'high priority' field. Any idea how to
ensure certain prefixes actually go into this high priority queue instead of
all of the going through the normal queue? Tis would speed up the programming
of certain prefixes into the fib in a failure event.
There is none. But the enterprise switching book is very good
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:15:36 +0400
From: nick.krit...@gmail.com
To: dha...@juniper.net
CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX5 vs Brocade CER
Doug,
thanks for the book. Nice to see the kindle
CER-RT supports 1.5 million IPv4 in FIB, MX only does 1 million. However the
CER-RT uses a slightly slower ram to hold these routes as opposed to TCAM for
it's MLX/XMR bigger brothers. I'm not 100% sure what the performance knock for
this is as I've not done extensive testing.
Other than that,
Why then does Juniper say it can hold 1 million in FIB?
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:45:07 +0300
From: s...@ytti.fi
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX5 vs Brocade CER
On (2012-10-22 08:57 +0100), Darren O'Connor wrote:
CER-RT supports 1.5 million IPv4 in FIB
It was Doug Hanks that said it. And he wrote the new MX book
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:45:16 +0300
From: s...@ytti.fi
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX5 vs Brocade CER
On (2012-10-22 12:03 +0100), Darren O'Connor wrote:
Why then does Juniper say it can
Hi all.
I'm looking at replacing my ageing m7i's with MX80s. I have run into a few
issues where the RIB is not moved to the FIB in a timely fashion and the router
effectively black holes traffic for up to 20 minutes while it empties the krt
queue.
My hope that with a beefier MX80, this
-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] OID for BGP inet/0 and inet6.0
On 03/20/2012 10:04 PM, Darren O'Connor wrote:
Hi all.
Does anyone know the oid value to get the current inet.0 and inet6.0
BGP total values via SNMP?
Are you sure there is one?
There are per-peer per-AF prefix counters
I forgot to mention, this is for an M router
From: Darren O'Connor
Sent: 20 March 2012 22:05
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: OID for BGP inet/0 and inet6.0
Hi all.
Does anyone know the oid value to get the current inet.0 and inet6.0 BGP
total values via SNMP?
Thanks
Hi all.
Does anyone know the oid value to get the current inet.0 and inet6.0 BGP
total values via SNMP?
Thanks
Darren O'Connor
_
This e-mail and all attachments have been scanned by the hSo virus scanning
43 matches
Mail list logo
