Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm getting this error while trying to invoke a remote Op script via SSL. How
> do I enable the SSL support?
>
> ihsan@bgw01-kul> request system scripts refresh-from op file bgp-check.slax
> url https://192.168.2.100/junos/o
Hi,
I'm getting this error while trying to invoke a remote Op script via SSL. How
do I enable the SSL support?
ihsan@bgw01-kul> request system scripts refresh-from op file bgp-check.slax url
https://192.168.2.100/junos/op/bgp-check.slax
refreshing 'bgp-check.slax' from 'https://192.168.2.100/ju
Hi,
I'm building an infrastructure which comprises of a few tens of racks with
Hadoop, Supermicro MicroCloud and whatnot running. Each rack probably will have
EX4200 or EX3300 ToR switch, individually at the moment, not VC-chained. These
switches will have a couple of EX4550 aggregating the cir
Johan,
You might want to know that VRRPv6 isn't supported on the branch SRX so if you
need IPv6 resiliency, you're out of luck.
If you need both v4 and v6 node resiliency, the only way to do it now is
clustering which is a whole different beast altogether.
On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:29 PM, Johan B
Hi,
On Jul 12, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Frank Norman wrote:
> ...
>
> Now can someone tell me
>
> 1) what are the standard models (PPPoE or DHCP ? ) that are being used in
> such kind of broadband networks?? and which is more flexible??
Both are fine from protocol perspective. I've used both and DHCP
Hi folks,
Is anyone able to install multiple destinations into their inet6-backup-router
stanza?
No matter what i do, I can't seem to install more than one destinations into
the backup router.
It's an SRX240H running 11.4S3.
ihsan@acs01-kul-node0# set system inet6-backup-router 2400:3700:20:1
Cable typetype Xcvr vendorpart number
> Wavelength
> 2 GIGE 1000LX10 SMOPNEXT INC TRF5736AALB2141310 nm
>
> Xcvr vendor
> firmware version
> 0.0
> Gustavo Santos
> Analista de Redes
> CCNA , M
I've had those messages too when I plugged in the SFPs. Some SFP brands that
used to work on GE PICs and MICs on M/T/MX series on 10.4 now complains of the
same error logs.
I can't recall the specific EEPROM ID offhand but maybe you can jog my memory
by running show chassis pic on the slot.
On
Forgot to mention another important bits.
There is no filter on MX and the SRX is configured to allow all inbound
services and protocols.
ihsan
On Jun 19, 2012, at 1:10 AM, Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Here's my situation.
>
> I have an MX5 configured to du
Folks,
Here's my situation.
I have an MX5 configured to dual-homed to two sets of SRX240 in a cluster with
the intention of running OSPF + BGP between them.
The links are straight point to points with no switch in between.
OSPF between the two works alright, so does static. BGPv4 and BGPv6 (st
We sorted this one out, apparently the RR export policy is discarding bgp.l2vpn
routes implicitly due to the policy structure.
One term to allow the RIB in, the problem goes away.
Silly me.
That taught me a lesson.
Thanks all.
ihsan
On May 22, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim wrote
I'm aware of that and it's already been configured before the start of the
thread.
Thanks,
Ihsan
On 22 May 2012, at 17:03, Per Granath wrote:
> Something about "prefix length size 2" on cisco...
>
> http://forums.juniper.net/t5/Routing/Cisco-and-Juniper-VPLS-Integration-using-BGP/td-p/42308/p
Yes it does.
ihsan@rr-01-csfcb-re0> show route table inet.3 223.28.0.15
inet.3: 618 destinations, 618 routes (618 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
Restart Complete
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
223.28.0.15/32 *[IS-IS/18] 2d 14:42:16, metric 20220
> to 223.28.5
Hi folks,
Anyone can help if I'm missing anything?
I have a BGP session setup between two ME3600X (IOS 15.2) PEs with JUNOS
10.4R4.5 M120 RR exchanging L2VPN VPLS auto-discovery AFI.
The session is well established and prefixes are received however the peers are
unable to locate each other hen
; Can you share your config used?
>
> BR,
> Tasho Shukerski
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim"
>
> To: "Tasho Shukerski"
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 7:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Carrier-of-Carriers que
Hi,
I don't see why you can't.
We have one running in our network.
Depending on your CoC node topology, you may need to be extra watchful on
potential loops or unefficient routing caused primarily by next-hops being
mutually distributed by OSPF/LDP and BGP.
On Nov 16, 2011, at 9:41 PM, Tasho
We're running R5.5 for a couple of our MX480s undergoing testing as BRAS.
Ran the code to resolve an issue where PPPoE states are stucked at Terminating
only to run to an issue where PPPoE state unable to move beyond Init in this
release. Go figure.
Last we heard from our SEs, the 10.4 release
ndicating a problem.
> Solarwinds systems doesn't show anything of interest...
>
>
>
> Thoughts? ;) I'm thinking of setting up another open source monitoring
> solution just to further eliminate the Juniper side of this...
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
&g
; [..]
>
> The output is very long ( I had to stopped after 3 minutes) and we don't
> know if that is normal o no. What should we do? Is it possible to clean this
> routes?
>
> Thanks a lot for your help,
>
> Matthew
>
>
> El 04/05/2010 15:14, Ihsan Junaidi Ib
Hi all,
I've configured Juniper RPM with probe type udp-ping-timestamp but
having zero luck obtaining results. The probes kept timing out. The
target host's packet filter has been explicitly configured to return
reject message to the probe destination port. Counter check on the term
tallies with t
d not be replicating the packets (a maximum of only 1 copy of
packet will traverse through the same link).
Hope this help.
/ihsan
From: alaerte vidali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 December, 2007 7:00 AM
To: Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: R
I believe it's draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.
We are already running P2MP LSP (template-based) for VPLS multicast
delivery. We're on 8.3.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of alaerte vidali
Sent: Friday, 30 November, 2007 2:14 PM
To: juniper-n
Hi all,
Just a shortie.
Is there a difference between exporting cflowd data from the peering/border
routers as opposed to exporting them from the aggregator nodes assuming they
are directly connected to the border networks and all connected interfaces
are sampled.
TIA,
/ihsan
_
Rephrase that, On 7.6, the aggregated routes are still marked as having
incomplete origin.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ihsan Junaidi
Ibrahim
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 3:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Phil Bedard'
Cc: j
Jeff,
On 7.6, the aggregated routes are still marked as origin. I have a couple of
and many older 7.0 boxes doing that. I still have to manually mark the
routes as IGP-originated in the aggregate defaults stanza.
/ihsan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
Alex,
You can try this.
Add the disk back to the boot list. To do that, enter shell as root and run
this command:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sysctl -w
machdep.bootdevs=pcmcia-flash,compact-flash,disk,lan
Reboot and you should see the disk detected in the dmesg log. Then run the
smartd test. Go to root
Have you created the local user account named "remote" in the router?
By default Junos uses "remote" to authenticate against TACACS+ if the
authenticated user record is not available locally on the router.
/ihsan
- Original Message -
From: Kristian Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Satu
: Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] BGP load balancing on 2 links (same ISP)
Ihsan,
I've heard that although the load balance option is known as
"per-packet"
but it behaves more like "per flow". Meaning packets would not be bre
Yes it can.
You'll need all those plus for best result, enable per-flow load balancing.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> show configuration policy-options policy-statement
load-balance
then {
load-balance per-packet;
}
This policy is then applied under BGP peer and forwarding table export
policies.
[EMA
ary 14, 2007 5:35 PM
To: Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim
Cc: 'Ariff Premji'; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re[2]: [j-nsp] BGP RR in MPLS VPN
Hi Ihsan,
How have you put the route into inet.3 ?
I generally see it configured as a "discard" route, then it's not
hidden
Chee
--Original Message-
From: Ariff Premji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 10:52 AM
To: Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP RR in MPLS VPN
Not sure if you've explore this option or not. You dont need to setup LSPs
to your RR.
Hi all,
Bringing up an old topic. :)
I'm having problem creating an LSP on one of my RR to it's own lo0. The reason
I'm doing this is to propagate our network loopback prefix to the rest of the
PEs, without creating full mesh of LSPs between the PEs and the RRs.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] show label-sw
32 matches
Mail list logo
