Re: [j-nsp] juniper trinity

http://www.amazon.com/Network-Processors-Architecture-Programming-Implementation/dp/0123708915/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1256469141&sr=8-1 Not to stray too off topic, but this book looks interesting... From: Nahrux M To: Richard A Steenbergen Cc: Juniper-Nsp Se

Re: [j-nsp] [c-nsp] juniper trinity

You are mistaken.  They use the ez-chip in non "Q" cards as well for the MX. I think you only need to look at what the Q card does and you will see it does not marry up very well to the "traffic management" feature of the ez-chip... I think the previous poster was correct.  Ethernet framing and

Re: [j-nsp] Miercom Competitive Performance Testing Results: Cisco ASR9000 vs Juniper MX960

Good thread... 1) We are testing 9.3r4 on MX right now to get the hell off 9.2r2. Can't wait to be done with that lemon release.. 2) We put no stock in vendor testing from anyone, including Juniper. When you start poking and prodding for details, you start hearing.. "Well this is the thing..

[j-nsp] Two IPSec questions...

Using next-hop style service-sets. 1) Is there any kind of observable event/log entry that occurs when a plain IPSec tunnel goes down (remote endpoint has static IP)? When a tunnel goes down at one site, we would like to redirect traffic to another site that also has a tunnel to the same re

Re: [j-nsp] lsp required for vpls?

MPLS does not "depend" on RSVP. MPLS itself has "multiple" layers. The most basic model is the "transport" layer underneath an "application" layer. This is the model many service providers use. Each "layer" has its own signaling. So, for instance, the transport layer in a service provider

Re: [j-nsp] DMVPN on Juniper

Juniper really doesn't have a JUNOS based "any-to-any" type encryption solution. The sad part is that if they supported NHRP and GDOI, then they would have a solution that would be compatible with Cisco DMVPN is really just GRE w/NHRP and some propriety hooks into IPSec... take those proprie

Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS not compliant with RFC 3392?

sable-4byte-as" command hidden? ____ From: Derick Winkworth To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:13:35 PM Subject: JUNOS not compliant with RFC 3392? All: We are establishing a BGP session between an M120 and a Checkpoint firewall.  The Che

[j-nsp] JUNOS not compliant with RFC 3392?

All: We are establishing a BGP session between an M120 and a Checkpoint firewall.  The Checkpoint does not support 4-byte ASs.  It is sending the Notification to the M120 indicating so, but the M120 keeps sending the capability code everytime it trys to reestablish. Doesn't that make JUNOS non

[j-nsp] Juniper switching book...

All: I see this in the description on amazon and oreilly: # JNCIA-EX, JNCIE-X, and JNCIE-EX # Anyone care to elaborate on the those E level certs? D ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailm

Re: [j-nsp] Build a GRE tunnel on VRRP routers

This will have to change if they really want to take a significant portion of the enterprise market. From: Richard A Steenbergen To: Stefan Fouant Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:41:37 PM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Build a GRE tun

Re: [j-nsp] Build a GRE tunnel on VRRP routers

VRRP was designed really for having two routers on a LAN and providing "default gateway" redundancy for hosts on the LAN. You should not mix your GRE tunnels with VRRP. Just build two tunnels and use a routing protocol over them for redundancy. Fatiha HOUACINE wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to c

[j-nsp] SNMP issue...

# Feb 20 17:44:54 snmpd[4d88b0c2] >> Feb 20 17:44:54 snmpd[4d88b0c2] >>> Get-Next-Request Feb 20 17:44:54 snmpd[4d88b0c2] >>> Source: 10.254.0.33 Feb 20 17:44:54 snmpd[4d88b0c2] >>> Destination: 10.254.23.2 Feb 20 17:44:54 snmpd[4d88b0c2] >

Re: [j-nsp] SNMP interface index change after upgrade to 9.2

I'm late jumping into this conversation, but are you using virtual-chassis by chance? Did the order of the individual units change when you upgraded? Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Tore Anderson said: > >> * Chris Adams >> >>> Never used Cisco I guess? >>> >> I have. As

Re: [j-nsp] EX-series automation, NETCONF woes

xpath wildcards? Ross Vandegrift wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:17:11AM -0800, Derick Winkworth wrote: > >> xpath notation can help you find "junos-interface:interfaces" no >> matter where its located. >> > > Can you do that without p

Re: [j-nsp] EX-series automation, NETCONF woes

xpath notation can help you find "junos-interface:interfaces" no matter where its located. xpath notation should be supported by virtually any XML parsing tool. "should" be. From: Ross Vandegrift To: Joe Abley Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Wednesda

Re: [j-nsp] M10i - %KERN-1-RT_PFE: RT msg op 1 (PREFIX ADD) failed, err 6 (No Memory) / RT msg op 3 (PREFIX CHANGE) failed, err 6 (No Memory)

Could be a memory leak... listensamm...@gmx.de wrote: > Bjørn Tore Paulen schrieb: >> Might there be some issue with permissions here? If you login as root or >> similar you should be able to start shell. >> > Thanks for your replies. I "fixed" the problem by rebooting the router > yesterday.

Re: [j-nsp] ex4200 static arp

It is also how checkpoint firewalls work in a multicast cluster... Except they don't reply to arps with a multicast address... I believe the requirement is that you have to create a static arp entry. The issue with JUNOS is that a static arp entry (even one with a mutlicast mac address) can only

Re: [j-nsp] EX Series Experiences

If you are using Cisco G-series phones, they support LLDP-MED, so you can use that to do your voice-vlan config as is done CDP... Brendan Mannella wrote: > All, > > I am looking to purchase a few Juniper EX switches, specifically 3200 > series. I am interested in hearing how they are performing

Re: [j-nsp] BGP multihop question

dress or their individual > addresses? > > > -----Original Message- > From: Derick Winkworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 31 October 2008 11:03 PM > To: Campbell, Alex > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP multihop question > >

Re: [j-nsp] BGP multihop question

That is the correct approach, unless they are also running RIP or OSPF inbetween... Which I doubt. But hey... you never know. Campbell, Alex wrote: > Hi all, > > We are in the process of bringing up an additional upstream provider to > our J4350s. They have given us two switchports on a /29, a

Re: [j-nsp] MX sw license

Sigh... I hope Juniper doesn't start licensing their products to death, like the big "C" has in some cases... Alexandre Snarskii wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 05:50:04PM -0700, Marlon Duksa wrote: > >> Does anyone know if sw license is required for a lab use on MX in 9.2? These >> are the m

Re: [j-nsp] system maximums for the M and MX series routers

Is there something in particular you are looking for? Nahrux M wrote: > Greetings > > System maximums described on link below is for the E-series routers. > > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/erx/junose92/sw-rn-erx920p1-0/frameset.htm > > Is there any document describing the same for the J

Re: [j-nsp] CoS Marking/Rewrite Theory

hmm... ### When you assign a rewrite rule to a subset of forwarding classes, the commit does not fail, and the subset of forwarding classes work as expected. However, the forwarding classes to which the rewrite rule is not assigned are rewritten to all zeros. For example, if you configure

Re: [j-nsp] CoS Marking/Rewrite Theory

It matches also on PLP, not just forwarding-class.. Since PLP is just one bit... why not use it is as a flag for rewriting? '1' = rewrite '0' = no rewrite I think you can effectively do that Chris Evans wrote: > First of all please forgive me if I cause confusion on this and let me know

Re: [j-nsp] General MX notes for use as a core ethernet switch...

> No option to distribute by src/dst IP, TCP/UDP src/dst port, MPLS label ? > > > We were only looking at layer-2 interfaces that are part of bridge-domains... Good question though. You can configure all of those things you mentioned, it really depends on what family is configured on the int

[j-nsp] General MX notes for use as a core ethernet switch...

Fiddling with the MX for a POC-like session, I found a couple of things others may find interesting... 1) On etherchannel bundles, traffic is distributed per destination-mac, per source-mac, or both. Unfortunately, this is not configurable on a per-link basis, only globally. So, for us, this

[j-nsp] NAT configuration restrictions....

I wanted to bring this back up again to see if anyone at Juniper can shed some light on why this restriction exists and if there are any plans to fix it? I ask because it seems this restriction is true even across logical routers (since there is no "services" configuration sub-tree under the

Re: [j-nsp] Dynamic Endpoints w/ IPSec

Stefan: Sorry, I was specfically referring to dynamic endpoint configurations, where you reference an isakmp access profile in the config. There is a restriction that if you do this (which is required to support dynamic endpoints), then you can not re-use the local gateway in another service

[j-nsp] Dynamic Endpoints w/ IPSec

Does anyone know if there are any plans to remove the restriction where you can not use the same local gateway in multiple service-sets? It would be so great if this were true... ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.

[j-nsp] Adjusting MSS on all transit TCP flows...

Anyone know if this is possible with JunOS on M-series routers? I see there is a syn-cookie option that might adjust MSS in some very narrow circumstances... I would like to do this for all TCP flows transiting an interface, specifically a GRE interface. It is possible in JunOSe. Thanks Der

<    1   2