Stefan is spot on regarding the testing method. You need diverse flows.
The forwarding-table export policy is completely useless in this scenario.
Your FIB should be showing reth0 as the Netif. Verify that your LACP is
working with show lacp
If LACP is up, it will handle the hashing of the
I can confirm this as well. Junos Transformation/Ironman started with 10.4R2.
There should be a meaningful difference. I know they've increased the
regression testing scripts by nearly 500%.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
I'm sure they were using a rapid ping, so it didn't take anywhere near 45
seconds. If they were using a regular ping, however, it maybe a STP issue.
Also are you using pre-signaled LSPs?
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
Spanning tree?
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gökhan Gümüs
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:14 PM
To: Keegan Holley
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Too much packet loss during
If it’s VPLS, the customer wouldn’t be using BGP though. That’s why I
mentioned STP.
From: Keegan Holley [mailto:keegan.hol...@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:47 PM
To: Gökhan Gümüş
Cc: Doug Hanks; Diogo Montagner; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Too much packet
Can they just ignore all the stuff that’s riding on top of your VPLS service
and try pinging across the VPLS tunnel? For example add secondary IPs to the
CE like 10.0.0.0/30.
From: Keegan Holley [mailto:keegan.hol...@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:57 PM
To: Doug Hanks
Cc: Gökhan
I would assume the customer would want to make sure L2 works and fails over
before they start stacking on BGP and other goodies.
From: Keegan Holley [mailto:keegan.hol...@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:08 PM
To: Doug Hanks
Cc: Gökhan Gümüş; Diogo Montagner; juniper-nsp
Can we at least see the show config | no-more and show route prefix/mask
extensive | no-more outputs on each of the routers?
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Vlad Ion
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011
The m7i would have no problem doing this at all.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Richard Zheng
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:37 PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] virtual
Do you need policy?
If not use the MX-80.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Jones
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:23 PM
To: Juniper nsp
Subject: [j-nsp] Router with lots of layer 3 interfaces
Hi,
And I'm assuming you cabled up the control-link and fabric correctly.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Stefan Fouant
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 7:00 AM
To: Walaa Abdel razzak
Cc:
We generally recommend 150ms to most customers. The added benefit of going
from 150ms to 50ms is generally not enough to warrant the move.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Andy Harding
Sent: Thursday,
Proxy-arp isn't required unless you're placing the SRX on a LAN segment where
other costs need to use ARP to reach the VIP instead of a route lookup.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Daniel M Daloia Jr
There's Junos tools such as apply-groups and apply-path to help automate
complicated or repetitive configurations.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of EXT -
plu...@senetsy.ru
Sent: Wednesday, March 02,
A lot of our customers require low latency: financial, higher education, HPC
environments and utility.
Juniper has taken the time to solve more than just the low latency problem.
We're trying to solve larger problems such as how do you manage an entire
campus or data center as one logical
This isn't designed to be placed as an aggregated PE device. I would
definitely say use an MX in this situation ;)
From: Keegan Holley [mailto:keegan.hol...@sungard.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 9:56 AM
To: Doug Hanks
Cc: Chris Evans; Juniper-Nsp List
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Qfabric
Sounds like the bandwidth-delay product really hampered SMB.
From: Jensen Tyler [mailto:jty...@fiberutilities.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:31 AM
To: Chris Evans
Cc: Juniper-Nsp List; Doug Hanks; Jeff Cadwallader
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Qfabric
This test was over our Private Fiber WAN
GRES+NSR+ISSU works just fine with DPCs. The ISSU for Trio is still roadmap.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Amos Rosenboim
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:49 AM
To: 'Juniper-Nsp'
@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] RE : SNMP if-mib stops responding
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
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
david@orange-ftgroup.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 11:40 AM
To: Pekka Savola; Ido Szargel
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject:
From what I understand LLDP don't support the 4-byte tag field in an Ethernet
frame. It should be expecting the EtherType of 0x88cc instead.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dale Shaw
Sent:
All control plane functions are on the primary node and the secondary node acts
like a backup RE and linecard. You can use the cluster active/passive or you
can use active/active. You aren't forced to only use active/passive. There's
a control link that synchronizes all of the runtime
I think that's a good direction to go. I would only recommend going with a
pair of SRX650s so that you can install a cluster and provide high availability.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ryan
I'm not quite understanding your NAT requirement. On the other hand I can tell
you from personal experience that SRX has some of the best NAT support I've
used.
Here are some common deployment methods for NAT and how to use them on the SRX.
traffic bypasses the SRX, so it's really not usable.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Goldberg [mailto:rgoldb...@compudyne.net]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 6:34 PM
To: Doug Hanks; Julien Goodwin
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] SRX advice
I apologize
To: Doug Hanks
Cc: Julien Goodwin; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] SRX advice
Excellent info. Thanks. Scenario 1, while admittedly silly, can occur when the
public ip is what's in dns and rather than playing dns tricks (because perhaps
in a given situation dns tricks
802.1ad or 802.1ah?
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Bill Blackford
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 11:46 AM
To: 'juniper-nsp'
Subject: [j-nsp] MX bridge-domains
I considered holding off on this
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/community/junos/script-automation/library/operations/cpu-usage-60/
Doug
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Martin T
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:50 PM
To:
The SRX is able to meet all of these requirements. I would highly recommend
the SRX650.
In regards to the HA - I personally feel it's really good. It isn't a
traditional HA setup where the passive firewall is completely unusable and just
an insurance policy until there's a failure. The SRX
101 - 129 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
