Label depth - EX4200 only supports a single MPLS label on a packet.
See
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.3/topics/concept/mpls-label-operations-ex-series.html
On Thu, 1 May 2014 14:15:36 +0700, Victor Sudakov wrote:
Colleagues,
Is MPLS support on EX4200 not complete? It is
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:27:13 -0700, John Neiberger wrote:
I'll preface this question by saying that I don't think this is a
problem on the router, but I'm stumped and I'm curious if anyone else
has run into this. We have a Cisco 4948 with two uplinks to different
MX960s we'll call RouterA and
That's a fault.
Grab an OTDR and test from each end to determine where it is (and test
the optics, of course)
Could be dirty optics, dirty / damaged connector, damaged fibre
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:14:19 +1100, Ali Sumsam wrote:
Hi All,
I am using a SFP-10GBase-ER for my Cisco3750X
It's the same on the MX series
I ended up with an open JTAC case because I'd configured bootp under
vrf's, but it wasn't working.
It needed to be configured under the base instance, as you've shown
here.
Perhaps something that Juniper should look at clarifying or expanding
on in the docs.
If you want to only block specific ports, rather than all traffic to
the RE, something like this may suit you:
term permit-ssh-ssl {
from {
source-address {
0.0.0.0/0;
E.F.G.H/20 except;
}
This (remote syslog) works for me on SRX550's running 12.1R1.9
This will apply a default deny log to the end of your security
policies, so you don't need to reorder policies after adding a new one.
I have had issues logging locally where the box will stop logging after
a while. Not a big
Hi Paul,
First, I'd fix up the MTU on those interfaces.
If the base mtu is 1500, you won't fit a full frame in a dot1q
interface under it.
To fix it, set the base interface mtu high specify the mtu you want
at the subinterface level. e.g.
interfaces {
ge-1/0/0 {
vlan-tagging;
office: 24 Cormack Park, Rothienorman,
Inverurie,
Aberdeenshire, AB51 8GL.
Subject to disclaimer at http://www.suretecgroup.com/disclaimer.html
Do you know we have our own VoIP provider called SureVoIP? See
http://www.surevoip.co.uk
On 8 Dec 2012, at 13:07, Gordon Smith gor...@gswsystems.com
Hi all,
I'm after some advice on setting up nextgen multicast on an RSVP based
MPLS network.
The network is quite simple - MX5's with static lsp's, rsvp signalling
fast reroute.
But setting up multicast over this is not something I'm very familiar
with.
I've looked at the Juniper
Hi all,
I'm not too sure what I'm doing wrong here
I have several VRF's, and want to pass dhcp requests to another vrf...
VRF config:
instance-type vrf;
interface ge-1/1/0.512;
interface ge-1/1/0.602;
interface ge-1/1/0.2064;
interface ge-1/1/0.2068;
interface ge-1/1/0.2072;
interface
Pays to set the mtu of the interface as well... e.g.
R1)
fe-0/0/0 {
vlan-tagging;
mtu 9192;
unit 1 {
vlan-id 111;
family inet {
mtu 1500;
address 10.0.5.1/24;
}
}
}
-Original Message-
From:
Commit confirmed does not work in 12.1 (SRX550 cluster), and is a known
issue.
Apparently it will be fixed, but no timeframe has been given :-(
It will accept a commit confirmed, but when you decide to keep the changes
made and do a commit, you'll get a file not found error, and the config
will
Hi,
Just wondering if anybody's come across this before - default IPv6
static not appearing in the routing instance inet6 table...
Instance is a VRF:
instance-type vrf;
interface ge-1/1/0.503;
interface ge-1/1/0.504;
route-distinguisher 56263:101;
vrf-import [ reject-all ];
vrf-export [
dmz.inet6.0 :a500:0:2::1
Thanks,
--Stacy
On Jun 12, 2012, at 11:48 PM, Gordon Smith wrote:
Hi,
Just wondering if anybody's come across this before - default IPv6
static not appearing in the routing instance inet6 table...
Instance is a VRF:
instance-type vrf;
interface ge-1/1/0.503;
interface
Proxy ARP can be useful while sorting out a broken (misconfigured) network,
but can also cause you a lot of grief.
If the network is configured correctly, it's just a hindrance. Most
definitely turn it off, then fix any routing issues it was masking.
I see someone mentioned turning off gratuitous
Check the default router config.
When the server sends the arp request, the router should reply with
it's own MAC address
Does it not have a route back to the switch?
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:43:43 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
I have run into an odd issue with ARP on an EX switch that I think is
wrote:
Once upon a time, Gordon Smith gor...@gswsystems.com said:
Check the default router config.
When the server sends the arp request, the router should reply with
it's own MAC address
Does it not have a route back to the switch?
No, the router isn't proxy ARPing. Let me put some IPs
The accept is what is allowing full bandwidth - you never hit the
policer.
firewall {
family inet {
filter policer {
term 10 {
from {
source-address {
192.168.10.35/32;
18 matches
Mail list logo
