[j-nsp] Juniper uRPF implementation

Hello, We have an scenario where we have a bunch of routes in the routing table (RE) but we only let one default route go to the PFE. We achieve that by using forwarding filters. Could someone clarify Juniper's uRPF implementation, when only a default route is installed in the PFE? Are the uRPF

Re: [j-nsp] Using TACACS to prevent deactivate/activate statements?

On Tue Apr 22, 2008, Brian Pavane wrote: Hello Brian, Did you have any luck with this task? Anything that you are willing to share is really welcome Thanks German > I am currently working on a security profile, that requires me to > prohibit certain deactivate/activate commands to be issued by

Re: [j-nsp] T-640 management ports

; Hope This will help > Alain Thanks German Martinez > > > -Message d'origine- > De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de German Martinez > Envoyé : vendredi 25 avril 2008 20:43 > À : juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Objet : [j-nsp] T-640

[j-nsp] T-640 management ports

Hello, According to Juniper' website the CIP card (Control Interface Card) holds the management ports for Routing Engine 0 and Routing Engine 1. Ports are grouped as Host0 and Host1. http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/hardware/t640/t640-hwguide/hw-cip.html#hw-re-ports By default, the auxiliary port

Re: [j-nsp] Problem exporting BGP routes.

On Sun Jul 01, 2007, Stephen Fulton wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm having an issue exporting routes to iBGP peers. I am able to import > routes from my iBGP peers fine, but not export. > > I have tried several variations on policy statements which effect > exactly what is being exported, but withou

Re: [j-nsp] BGP load balancing on 2 links (same ISP)

On Fri Mar 16, 2007, Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim wrote: Hello, You do not need to export your load-balance policy to your remote peer. You need ot export it into the forwarding table. Thanks German > Yes it can. > > You'll need all those plus for best result, enable per-flow load balancing. > > [E

Re: [j-nsp] BGP load balancing on 2 links (same ISP)

On Sat Mar 17, 2007, Niels Bakker wrote: > >It *is* per flow. The old IP 1 could do per packet, current IP 2 cannot. > > That's a feature. Per-packet load-balancing can easily lead to packet > reordering. Juniper load balance is per-flow, no issues with packet reordering Thanks German pgpyY

Re: [j-nsp] "show ip cef" equivalent on ERX ?

On Thu Feb 08, 2007, Peter Krupl wrote: CEF ? Cisco Express Forwarding? > Anyone aware to the existence of a "show ip cef" equivalent on the ERX ? > > Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards > Peter Åris Krüpl > Netværksspecialist > > Ventelo Webpartner > Århusgade 88 > 2100 København Ø > Denmark > >

Re: [j-nsp] Syslog for atm vc's JunosE

On Wed Feb 07, 2007, Peter Krupl wrote: > > Interface ATM-Prot VCD VPI VCI Type Encap MTU Status Type > - --- --- --- - - - > ATM 2/0.1010 RFC-1483 1010 10 10 PVC SNAP 9180 down Static > ATM 2/1.1010 RFC-1483 2

Re: [j-nsp] Metric in BGP is not send

On Tue Feb 06, 2007, Joerg Staedele / Trusted Network GmbH wrote: > is it a bug that metrics are ONLY send to a bgp peer when there's a > "then metric .."-statement within the outgoing policy even when there > are already metrics in a prefix? > > when i add a "then metric add 0" to the outgoing p

[j-nsp] Optical integration - optical IMUX

Hello, Could someone from Juniper comment about this article? http://www.juniper.net/company/newsletter/jnews_article_070101.html What will be the diffence of running this or running 4 links in paralel? Thanks! German ___ juniper-nsp mailing list junip