we have a life cycle of about 100k it might become
an issue very soon. Do note that this may effect only event mode logs not
the stream mode.
-Hoogen
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:45:07PM -0700, Hoogen wrote:
> > I think f
I think flash isn't going to be considered... It has a finite erase/write
cycles.. yeah but 8200 could have had more storage..
-Hoogen
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:31:15AM +0300, Pavel Lunin wrote:
> > Richard, one mo
in
their setup, problems that their facing, improvements and general deployment
scenario that have been used.
-Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Config with a small snapshot of the routing table would be nice..
-Hoogen
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Stefan Fouant <
sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net> wrote:
> Show us your config for 'protocols rip'.
>
> Stefan Fouant
> --Original Message--
&g
Hi Dermot,
Thank you for the suggestion... I had done it.. but no change... I guess if
you see the output from l2vpn connections... It has detected the other site
id correctly... also I guess the ctrl status is up... It's just complaining
I am assuming about the data plane..
Thanks,
Hooge
up for
more troubleshooting tips on L3/L2 VPN's..
Thanks again.
Hoogen
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Nilesh Khambal wrote:
> Why is the below route on R6, isn’t pointing to any LSP towards R4? Is
> route reflector changing the protocol next-hop of the route coming from R4?
>
&
nterface: ge-0/0/2.600, Status: Up, Encapsulation: VLAN
Remote PE: 10.0.9.6, Negotiated control-word: Yes (Null)
Incoming label: 83, Outgoing label: 84
[edit]
l...@r4#
Thanks,
Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.n
# Up trans
2 rmt VC-Dn - 0
Local interface: ge-0/0/2.600, Status: Up, Encapsulation: VLAN
Remote PE: 10.0.9.6, Negotiated control-word: Yes (Null)
Incoming label: 83, Outgoing label: 84
[edit]
l...@r4#
Thanks,
Hoogen
On Sun, Feb
0 Out lbl Update80
Feb 15 01:44:04 2010 In lbl Update 83
Feb 15 01:44:04 2010 loc intf up ge-0/0/2.600
[edit]
l...@r4#
Thanks,
Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck
ime last up # Up trans
21rmt OR
[edit]
l...@r4#
Thanks,
Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Thanks for all the great info Richard...
-Hoogen
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 03:11:29AM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > That one is pretty different from the usual slowness issue that seems to
> > be affecting
a part
of the solutions. Is this overdoing the requirement, or am I missing
something..
Any ideas would be great..
-Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
I would assume so...SRX240.. is not an equivalent to ASR1002..
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Derick Winkworth wrote:
> Wouldn't an SRX-650 be a better choice if your comparing to an ASR1002?
>
>
>
>
> From: Kris Amy
> To: "mti...@globaltransit.net" ; "
> junip
Thanks for you reply Stefan. Appreciate it..
-Hoogen
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
> Hoogen,
>
> I honestly wouldn't waste too much time with TCL scripts, etc. Most of
> that
> stuff is locked out during the exam... You could script something using
lines of the tcl scripts which can be written in Cisco, which a
lot of people used to test connectivity in the CCIE lab exam.
Thanks,
Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
It's late night here... excuse my typos and all the gibberish.. But yeah
Static routes maybe the only solution..
-Hoogen
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Hoogen wrote:
> What is your topology?.. Is your topology is similar to the book?? The
> questions do seem a bit awkward... Wel
...
Another way to just solve your problem would be to have static routes... to
the ABR's.
-Hoogen
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Walaa Abdel razzak wrote:
> Hi
>
> If I did this, then R6 or R7 will prefer datacenter routes through R5 bcoz
> they r coming with lower preference than
external-preference 148 <-- Make the nssa def route
preference on R6 and R7 to be lower than that received from the ISIS DC
router.
-Hoogen
2009/11/7 Walaa Abdel razzak
> Hi Experts
>
>
>
> If you have area 2 nssa receiving default route from the ABR with metric
> 150, t
interfaces ae0 <-- Should give you some detail.. use the detail switch
for more information
-Hoogen
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:08 AM, chandrasekaran iyer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to run ospf over aggregated interface (say ae2) and
> check neighborship comes up, also ping to other
your internal peers ?
>
> cheers
> Sean
>
>
> On 10/29/09 11:29 PM, Hoogen wrote:
>
> I guess for the solution to work we need to have
>
> autonomous-system 65001 loops 3;
>
> This would make sure we get those routes.
>
> -Hoogen
>
> On Thu, Oc
I guess for the solution to work we need to have
autonomous-system 65001 loops 3;
This would make sure we get those routes.
-Hoogen
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Hoogen wrote:
> Okay.. Earlier task required while accepting routes from peer to tag them
> with a community and prepen
sort of as loop... So I guess there is something wrong about it..
Page 568 of the JNCIP books...
-Hoogen
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Hoogen wrote:
> R1
>
> l...@r1> show configuration routing-options
> static {
> route 10.0.200.0/24 {
> next-hop 10.
pt;
}
term 2 {
from community trans-1-2;
then {
next-hop self;
}
}
l...@r3>
Thanks for your help guys..
-Hoogen
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Sean Clarke wrote:
>
> What is in your ibgp export policy from R1 to R3 ? Are you putting
> something in there to cau
d the solutions, and there seems nothing
wrong..
-Hoogen
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Felix Schueren <
felix.schue...@hosteurope.de> wrote:
> Hoogen,
>
> Hoogen wrote:
> >>> Now R3 only receives
> >>>
> >>> l...@r3# run show route receive-protoc
st don't seem to receive the route.
-Hoogen
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Sean Clarke wrote:
>
> Are you doing "Next hop self" on R1 to advertise to R3, or are you trying
> to send the routes without R3 knowing anything about the eBGP next-hop
> 10.0.5.254 ? If the
ibgp;
neighbor 10.0.6.1;
}
As you notice there is no policy to deny any routes.. Can someone help me
out here..
-Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
those routers that do not understand this. But is should be okay.
-Hoogen
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Matthew Walster wrote:
> Hey there,
>
> I'm currently using the default reference-bandwidth for OSPF (presumably
> 100M) and would like to change this to 10G to reflec
Thank you Daniel and Farooq.
-Hooge
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Daniel Verlouw wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 01:16 -0700, Hoogen wrote:
> > Now from my understanding of the question I need to deny the longer more
> > specific routes... on R5 filter saying 172.16.40/29 lo
= Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
172.16.40.0/29 *[IS-IS/165] 00:04:29, metric 13
> to 10.0.2.1 via t1-2/0/0.35
[edit]
l...@r3#
Is my understanding right.. or is this step not required ...I do not see
this extra solution in t
Got that...From an old post... I wanted to do a multi point since I knew it
would work.. But seems like Harry did confirm that..
I would try adding the multipoint keyword under the interface unit, and also
add mapping for each remote dlci. The latter is needed due to lack of inarp
response (if tha
Hi All,
For a good measure I checked the link ip address between 10.0.2.5 and
10.0.2.6 there is no netmask issues This is a requirement as stated in
OSPF case study in JNCIP book. To make the link between R3-R4 to have a DR
election... So i made it an nbma interface... which is now causing th
ny loss of
points in overdoing anything... In this case I believe I am just setting the
values without caring for the defaults.
-Hoogen
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Nalkhande Tarique Abbas <
ntari...@juniper.net> wrote:
>
> The default maximum file size depends on the platform typ
Modify the syslog parameters to log all interactive CLI commands to a file
called rn-cli, where n is equal to the router number. Configure the CLI log
to permit four archived copies that will be no larger than 128K, and ensure
that CLI-related logging is also sent to 10.0.200.2, which is providing
other than this?
-Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
definitely help.
Thanks,
Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi All,
Kind of silly but I am not able to figure this out.. So any help
Appreciated..
I am trying to ping 172.16.1.254.. which works if I remove the load balance
policy but doesn't if I apply it..
-Hoogen
regr...@shiraz> show configuration interfaces
ge-0/0/1 {
vlan-tagging;
36 matches
Mail list logo
