MX isn’t a VoQ system. It actually buffers on both ingress and egress chipsets.
The QFX10K is a VoQ system and buffers on ingress chip. QFX10K has 384K VoQs
per PFE. In the case of the QFX10002-72Q that would be a system total of 2.3M.
> On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:31 AM, Adam Vitkovsky
individually.
Please RSVP and signup at:
http://bajug.eventbrite.com
Feel free to forward this invitation to your friends and colleagues. I look
forward to seeing you there.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Juniper Networks
Twitter: @douglashanksjr
# set policy-options policy-statement test term 1 then priority ?
Possible completions:
high Set priority to high
low Set priority to low
medium Set priority to medium
On 2/24/13 1:06 AM, Darren O'Connor darre...@outlook.com wrote:
Hi all.
vanilla ibgp between the RRs would work
On 2/5/13 6:36 PM, Ali Sumsam ali+juniper...@eintellego.net wrote:
Hi All,
I want to configure two RRs in my network.
What should be the relation between two of them?
I want them to send updates to each other and to the RR-Clients.
Regards,
*Ali Sumsam
Don't forget to configure NSB to help with LACP and other L2 stuffs.
set ethernet-switching-options nonstop-bridging
On 10/31/12 1:05 PM, Luca Salvatore l...@ninefold.com wrote:
Yes so GRES and NSR is configured am correctly then?
The AE is a VC-lag with one member on each switch.
Luca
On
Should be hitless. You need to configure GRES + NSR + no-split-detection.
On 10/30/12 4:06 PM, Morgan McLean wrx...@gmail.com wrote:
Can anybody give me an idea regarding typical failover times if the master
in a two switch pair were to die? The quickest I've seen in my testing
with
EX3300's is
GR is mutually exclusive with NSR.
You want NSR.
On 10/30/12 5:44 PM, Luca Salvatore l...@ninefold.com wrote:
I'm just playing around with this now since I have a few new EX switches
not in production just yet
Have a pretty simple setup with two EX4500 in VC connected to another two
EX4500 in
The MX can do this several different ways:
1) VPLS MH - it's a O(n) convergence problem, where n is the number of
VPLS instances
2) MC-LAG A/S - now becomes a O(1) convergence problem
On 10/29/12 4:19 PM, Luca Salvatore l...@ninefold.com wrote:
Hi Guys,
I have a question regarding dual VPLS
Pretty much. enhanced-hash-hey does a lot by default. Harry can elaborate.
On 10/23/12 2:38 AM, Paul Vlaar p...@vlaar.net wrote:
On 23/10/12 12:59 AM, Doug Hanks wrote:
hash-key = DPC (should never been been on or used on the MX80 - doesn't
even do anything when configured)
enhanced-hash
than happy to give you the current scaling results
with the hardware + software combinations.
On 10/22/12 8:24 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2012-10-22 13:21 +0100), Darren O'Connor wrote:
It was Doug Hanks that said it. And he wrote the new MX book
I've not read this book. But I find
hash-key = DPC (should never been been on or used on the MX80 - doesn't
even do anything when configured)
enhanced-hash-key = MPC (which works on the MX80 as it's based on Trio)
On 10/22/12 5:36 PM, Paul Vlaar p...@vlaar.net wrote:
I just upgraded one of our MX80s to 12.2R1.3, and the
, JUNCIA-ER
2012/10/15 Doug Hanks dha...@juniper.netmailto:dha...@juniper.net
If you're having a hard time writing
the proper code-points to a packet, I would assume the packets are
classified correctly.
s/correctly/incorrectly/
___
juniper-nsp mailing
{
then {
loss-priority high;
forwarding-class best-effort;
}
}
[edit firewall family inet filter controle]
Gustavo Santos
Analista de Redes
CCNA , MTCNA , MTCRE, MTCINE, JUNCIA-ER
2012/10/15 Doug Hanks dha...@juniper.netmailto:dha...@juniper.net
All you need in this scenario
/techpubs/images/g017213.gif
Packets travel through the box based on the outer boxes following the solid
lines. The dotted lines all point to or from the FC to identify how the
decision is made.
Serge
From: Doug Hanks dha...@juniper.netmailto:dha...@juniper.net
traffic from a trusted source
using the same FC.
Caillin
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Doug Hanks
Sent: Monday, 15 October 2012 2:35 PM
To: Serge Vautour; Chris Evans; Gustavo Santos
Cc: juniper-nsp
If you're having a hard time writing
the proper code-points to a packet, I would assume the packets are
classified correctly.
s/correctly/incorrectly/
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
traffic from a trusted source
using the same FC.
Caillin
-Original Message-
From:
juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.netmailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.netmailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net]
On Behalf Of Doug Hanks
Sent: Monday, 15
in
confirming matches. You may also want to show config | display
detail/inheritance to see if the prefix list is expanding as you
expect.
Regards
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:
juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Doug Hanks
Sent
I'm sure it's working just fine. Are you checking the egress interface to
see if the traffic is being marked and queued properly? A common mistake
is to check the ingress interface queues.
If this doesn't work, we would need to see your entire class-of-service
configuration.
On 10/12/12 6:04
So I guess the million dollar question is what does your BGP export policy
look like?
Reply-all with:
- show protocols bgp
- show policy-options policy-statement whatever is being used as an
export BGP policy
On 9/27/12 10:49 AM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
I don't know when
It's working as designed.
Junos leaves the BGP advertisements in the hands of the operator. What you've
done is created an export policy that just happens to match fxp0; this isn't
Junos' fault.
If you want to advertise direct interfaces, but exclude fxp0, you could do
something like this
See inline.
On 9/19/12 4:09 PM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
The above configuration works. Unfortunately, I must duplicate the
above stanzas for each CVLAN. If I try to use vlan-id-list [ 423 424
] on the EX4200-facing port, the IFL sees 0 packets. For example:
interface
Use a SP-style IFL using 802.1ad for telco. Use a SP-style IFL using
802.1q for the EX4200. The BD will automatically pop and push tags for you.
Does that help?
On 9/19/12 1:00 PM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
Dear List,
I am having trouble figuring out how to configure a
I totally read this as tacos on Junos and got excited for a moment :(
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Running MC-LAG A/A on the two MXs works pretty well. That will provide a
single, logical link using LACP to the EXs.
On 9/13/12 1:55 AM, Johan Borch johan.bo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have two mx and two ex connected as follows, L2 on the EX and L2/L3
on MX, MX handles all the routing.
MX --
Using fxp0 for inline-jflow has been disabled since 10.2; you need to use
a revenue port as the egress.
On 9/6/12 5:05 AM, moki vom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
Does anyone know if inline-jflow support to send traffic via fxp
interface.
I tried to configure inline-jflow with the configuration
This should walk you through most of your questions:
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/community/junos/training-certification/day-one
/fundamentals-series/securing-routing-engine/
Doug
On 8/22/12 8:35 PM, Md. Jahangir Hossain jrjahan...@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear all friend:
Wishes all are fine.
I
It's time for the Bay Area Juniper Users Group again. October 16th 5.30pm.
Sign up for free at http://bajug.eventbrite.com
Thanks,
Doug
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
2:00 PM, Doug Hanks wrote:
It's time for the Bay Area Juniper Users Group again. October 16th
5.30pm.
Sign up for free at http://bajug.eventbrite.com
Kudos Doug, really good stuff... maybe I'll have to schedule some
training related travel to Sunnyvale so I can attend.
Thanks for setting
get the full bandwidth of the Trio chipset on the
MX5, MX10, and MX40; the only restrictions are which ports you can use.
On 8/8/12 4:31 PM, Doug Hanks dha...@juniper.net wrote:
There was no technical reason behind the name of the MX5, MX10 or MX40;
was just a marketing thing.
Technically
, etc have the exact same
scaling numbers as the full blown MX80.
From: Tomasz Mikołajek tmikola...@gmail.commailto:tmikola...@gmail.com
Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:36 AM
To: Xu Hu jstuxuhu0...@gmail.commailto:jstuxuhu0...@gmail.com
Cc: Doug Hanks dha...@juniper.netmailto:dha...@juniper.net
Please note there's also the MX5 through MX40 that can be upgraded via a
license to a full MX80 as well.
On 8/7/12 1:56 AM, Tima Maryin timamar...@mail.ru wrote:
Hi,
have a look at:
https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/2012-May/023303.html
and the whole thread:
Action modifiers such as count, loss-priority, and forwarding-class
implicitly imply a terminating action of accept.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Solutions Architect EABU
Juniper Networks
On 7/22/12 10:34 AM, John Neiberger jneiber...@gmail.com wrote:
Forgive
with companies who have distributed
data centers (think traditional wireline service providers) and offers
network services, can you please unicast me?
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Solutions Architect
Juniper Networks
Works just fine on any MPC line card.
On 7/18/12 7:53 PM, Giuliano Medalha giuli...@wztech.com.br wrote:
People,
Does anyone on list has some experience in running multichassis LAG using
the following interface ?
MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP
This interface has some limitations like LAN-PHY only.
Is it
Traceoptions enabled under BGP will tell you exactly what's happening to
the prefix when being received.
On 7/11/12 9:19 AM, vaibhava varma svaibh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Diogo
Yes the RR Config is fine and the BGP neighbours are negotiated for
inet-vpn. RT I did verify earlier and was
The MX implementation of VCCP uses standard 802.1Q with a vlan-id of 4094.
I'm sure the EX is the same as well. The maximum latency is 100ms.
Although I agree having a virtual chassis span a WAN isn't the best idea
ever.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems
aggregate route 192.168.1/24 as-path atomic-aggregate
(atomic aggregate)
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 6/22/12 4:26 AM, EXT - plu...@senetsy.ru plu...@senetsy.ru wrote:
I have a /24 I want to announce, but I don't
Or just use BFD ...
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 5/29/12 4:54 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:19:19 PM Wan Tajuddin Wan Hussin
wrote:
Has anyone deploy this type of setting
immediateImmediate
internet-control Internet control
net-control Network control
priority Priority
routine Routine
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 5/26/12 7:30 PM, Uzi
This won't work for transit traffic.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 5/24/12 8:01 AM, Per Granath per.gran...@gcc.com.cy wrote:
Well, this gentleman: http://mccltd.net/blog/?p=1199 has looked at that,
so:
monitor traffic
various prefix lengths. For
example you can create an individual logical policer for every /32 in a
/25 network.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos94/swconfig-policy/pref
ix-action.html
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
the keynotes we have a nice social event with beer and pizza. I've
arranged for some of our internal experts to join in and meet people.
I hope to see you there.
http://bajug.eventbrite.com/
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
Twitter
The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
around 500K.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, Peter piotr.1...@interia.pl wrote:
Hi
I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget
The MX using Trio/MPC line cards support inline IPFIX for flow statistics. No
services card required. Just have to be sure your collector supports it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Flow_Information_Export
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
The MX5 scaling is identical to the MX80. The only difference is that the
MX5 restricts the physical port usage to MIC0.
3,000,000 IPv4 prefixes in the RIB.
1,000,000 IPv4 unicast in the FIB.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
Oldie, but a goodie. Still relevant for the MX:
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/training/certification/JNCIE_studyguide.pdf
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
Skype: douglashanks
925.577.4296
On 4/18/12 7:13 AM, Kevin Wormington
,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 4/9/12 2:21 PM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
On 04/09/2012 10:10 AM, bruno wrote:
not need to zone . coz i set it to packet mode
Your config only shows packet-mode for family mpls. IPv4
Those exams are retired anyway.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 3/25/12 7:21 AM, Jose Madrid jmadr...@gmail.com wrote:
To be clear, he is selling these and not just giving them away.
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:05 AM, CCIE
length (Spare)
EX-CBL-VCP-5M
EX 4200, EX4500 Virtual Chassis
Port cable 5M length
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 3/15/12 10:37 AM, Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote:
The juniper website doesn't seem
{
mtu 1516;
}
}
{master}
jnpr@R1-RE0 show isis adjacency
Interface System L StateHold (secs) SNPA
ae0.1 R2-RE0 2 Up 23
gr-2/0/0.0R2-RE0 2 Up 21
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE
15. Should be fine for personal use. It really just spawns another
instance of rpd.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 2/29/12 9:51 AM, Tom Storey t...@snnap.net wrote:
Hi everyone.
Can anyone provide any pointers
Just make sure you're running the right version of code. I think
EX4500-VC is supported as of 11.1 or 11.2. You'll also need the VC
modules in back.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 2/21/12 2:38 AM, Alexander Bochmann
It's as expected; you have to use vlan-tagging to add the 4 bytes to the
MTU. It's a documentation error.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 2/9/12 4:29 PM, Dawid Gajownik gajow...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I've been
Check your FIB again after that change.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 2/2/12 9:01 AM, Devin Kennedy devinkennedy...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hello:
I'm looking for some insight on the load balancing behavior that Junos
uses
'
##
authorization read-only;
}
{master}[edit]
jnpr@R1-RE0# show snmp | display inheritance when time 6pm
{master}[edit]jnpr@R1-RE0#
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 1/10/12 11:28 PM, Phil Shafer p...@juniper.net wrote:
Dale
of 10G in forwarding within the PFE.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 12/28/11 5:52 AM, sth...@nethelp.no sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
On the 1G MICs there is extra capacity to handle an lt interface, so
you can configure under
You can actually configure 50G worth of tunnel-services on the MX80. 10g
worth on FPC0 and 40G worth on FPC1. You need to be running Junos 10.2R4.
All of this without losing any revenue ports, but at the cost of
over-subscribing them.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
It's coming.
On 12/22/11 8:04 AM, Derick Winkworth dwinkwo...@att.net wrote:
I don't have the answer immediately for you, so I apologize.
But I wanted to chime in with a THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT comment.
The MX is super flexible and has loads of features with respect to
CDP shows up as policed discards.
On 12/18/11 1:23 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:11:18PM -0500, randy.tay...@bell.ca wrote:
I have seen this before facing Cisco device running CDP. Maybe you
have something that is running on your box that it
When using the new-style MX L2 commands, the bridge-domains do not require
you to add the interface.
However you need to use the bridge-domains knob routing-interface to
point to the irb interface.
Also on the MX you need to create interface irb.601 and not vlan.601
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks
show route advertising-protocol bgp neighbor IP extensive
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 10/21/11 9:15 AM, Loopback EZ loopb...@ezxyz.com wrote:
I am replacing an old Cisco router with a Brocade MLX as IBGP peer
Brendan,
The MX80 can handle about 4,000,000 IPv4 prefixes in the RIB and about
1,000,000 IPv4 prefixes in the FIB.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks, JNCIE-ENT, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those
of Juniper
It's probably easier to use QinQ.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matthew S. Crocker
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 7:08 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] dot1q CCC/MPLS on EX4200
The MX probably has the best support for QinQ I've seen.
-Original Message-
From: Matthew S. Crocker [mailto:matt...@corp.crocker.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 12:02 PM
To: Doug Hanks
Cc: Matthew S. Crocker; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] dot1q CCC/MPLS on EX4200
The SRX has more headroom for stateful scale and more features.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Brendan Mannella
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:19 AM
To: OBrien, Will; sth...@nethelp.no
Cc:
/0ug1kZcC
SRX100-2 http://pastebin.com/JL4KeGRw
Thank you,
Doug Hanks
Systems Engineer
JNCIP-M/T #1441
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Stacy,
I disabled PIM on the multicast source. I also disabled PIM on all of the
devices management interfaces (172.16.1.0/24). You were correct as the DR was
being elected on the broadcast network.
It now works as expected. Thanks a million!
Doug Hanks
security forwarding-options family mpls mode packet-based On the flipside
the J Series has a software forwarding plane while the MX has a hardware
forwarding plane.
Thank you,
Doug Hanks
Systems Engineer
JNCIP-M/T #1441
-Original Message-
From: juniper
Mike,
By default ebgp sends packets with a ttl=1. When you enable multihop you can
override the default and set multihop 5 for example.
Thank you,
Doug Hanks
Systems Engineer
JNCIP-M/T #1441
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun
Thank you,
Doug Hanks
Systems Engineer
JNCIP-M/T #1441
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Joel Jaeggli
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:57 AM
To: juniper-nsp
Correa,
The EX4500 isn't going to support 3x full BGP tables.
You can take a look the MX240 if you want a single box with redundant REs, or
use (2) MX80s fully meshed.
Thank you,
Doug Hanks
Systems Engineer
JNCIP-M/T #1441
-Original Message
Which IPv6 services are you talking about?
IPv6 routing is definitely done in hardware with the ASICs.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.0/information-products/topic-
collections/config-guide-cos/id-10110806.html
--
Doug Hanks, JNCIP-M/T #1441
Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
requirements below. The only downside I
can think of is that it doesn't have dual routing engines. If that's a
requirement you have to move up to the MX240 and above.
Thank you,
Doug Hanks
Systems Engineer
JNCIP-M/T #1441
-Original Message-
From: juniper
MX REs run 64-bit Junos.
--
Doug Hanks, JNCIP-M/T #1441
Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
I second the MTU recommendation.
--
Doug Hanks, JNCIP-M/T #1441
Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 5/31/11 1:37 PM, Alexander Frolkin a...@eldamar.org.uk wrote:
Hi,
I have a MX240 router installed at a remote location. I am able to
telnet/SSH the router but when I run a command
Seconded. The MX80-48T is all line-rate. It uses ASICs/hardware on the
forwarding plane.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Joel Jaeggli
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 3:25 PM
To: Dermot Williams
Cc:
If it's in a virtual-chassis it would be vme0.
Just type show interface terse and see what's there. Just because it isn't
in the configuration doesn't mean it isn't there. You just need to define it.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
Hmm. You can do it the good, old fashioned way with ping and the
do-not-fragment bit ;)
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of meryem Z
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 9:59 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
I would suggest the MX80.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of cjwstudios
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:50 PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] M7i
Hello Juniper folks :)
I'm
I don't think we give out recommended releases for MX. I personally use
10.4R2.6 with Trio supporting OSPF, ISIS, BGP and MPLS without major issues.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Hahues, Sven
I recommend using a backup-router as well.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Walaa Abdel razzak
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:19 AM
To: Michael Lee; EXT - plu...@senetsy.ru
Cc: juniper-nsp
Subject:
The 64-bit versions of Junos are the for the new routing engines for the MX
series. They're coming with 64-bit processors and SSD hard drives.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Martin T
Sent:
the Junos scheduler handle
it at a port level.
Any QoS expert want to chime in?
Doug
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kranz [mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:19 PM
To: Doug Hanks; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Tower top switch/router
, 2011 2:43 PM
To: Peter Kranz
Cc: Doug Hanks; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Tower top switch/router recommendation..
Seems like filters+policers allows you to specify bandwidth-limit
and burst-size..
I.e. if you had a pool of 10 mbps.. you could carve it into individual
Yes the resilient dual root partition was implemented to deal with this issue
on the EX. I believe this is pretty similar to what the branch SRX do today.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of TiM
to see what versions are installed on each partition with show
system snapshot media internal
Doug
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Doug Hanks
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 2:45 PM
To: t...@muppetz.com; Kaj
All the edge knob does is transition the port directly to the FWD state.
{master:0}[edit]
dhanks@EX4500-2# run show spanning-tree interface xe-0/0/38
Spanning tree interface parameters for instance 0
InterfacePort IDDesignated Designated PortState Role
The EX4200-48P - supports virtual-chassis[1] - or the EX3200-48P can do this,
although is requires an advanced license for BGP (EX-48-AFL).
CoS is pretty much the same for all Junos devices. Take a look at the
technical documentation for the EX and CoS.
.
Here's an example of a 1m policer:
policer 1m {
if-exceeding {
bandwidth-limit 1m;
burst-size-limit 125k;
}
then discard;
Doug
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kranz [mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:43 PM
To: Doug Hanks; juniper-nsp
I would have to look into it, but you should be able to set a max
bandwidth/transmit under cos then use filters + policers per customer.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kranz [mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 5:49 PM
To: Doug Hanks; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
As stated before, you can't have an aggregate interface going to two individual
switches.
-Original Message-
From: medrees [mailto:medr...@isu.net.sa]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 10:36 PM
To: Doug Hanks; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Load balancing using Ethernet
, 2011 11:11 PM
To: Doug Hanks; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Load balancing using Ethernet Aggregate interface ae0
Already I have one aggregate and connected to two different switches one
primary and one backup
ge-0/0/0 { to SW1
gigether
You have a backup-router configured in the re1 group?
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Zugnoni
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 12:21 PM
To: juniper-nsp
Cc: Richard A Steenbergen
Subject: Re: [j-nsp]
I'm not aware of any roadmap features that will do this, as we have an existing
method to do this today. It's easy enough to divert ingress traffic into a
different routing-instance with FBF, then just apply stateful policy to it.
Doug
-Original Message-
From:
, March 17, 2011 12:02 AM
To: Doug Hanks; Stefan Fouant; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] SRX 650 reth interface load balancing
Hi Doug
So, do you mean that there is no need to use the export policy on the
forwarding table and the traffic will be load balanced by default using
LACP? I
, this is
where you add the policy to the FIB to load-balance per-packet.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Doug Hanks
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:02 AM
To: Walaa Abdel razzak; Stefan Fouant
You can create a firewall filter and using the routing-instance knob.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Clarke Morledge
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:05 PM
To: juniper-nsp
Subject: [j-nsp] SRX policy
If I understand your question correctly ...
LACP requires a single signaling plane, so the remote devices need to be a
virtual-chassis, mc-lag, VSS or some other virtualization technology.
If you use a static LAG, there's no signaling at all, and the above still
applies, as the packets have to
Is the Cisco switch you're connecting to a 6509 with VSS? If so, yes you can
do that. If not, you won't be able to.
-Original Message-
From: medrees [mailto:medr...@isu.net.sa]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:31 PM
To: Doug Hanks; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Load
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
