-0400, Jared Mauch via juniper-nsp wrote:
> like this:
>
> subnet6 2001:db8:0003::/64 {
> # agent.link-address
>
> pool6 {
> range6 2001:db8:3::100 2001:db8:3::fff0;
> }
> option dhcp6.next-hop 2001:db8:0003
like this:
subnet6 2001:db8:0003::/64 {
# agent.link-address
pool6 {
range6 2001:db8:3::100 2001:db8:3::fff0;
}
option dhcp6.next-hop 2001:db8:0003::1;
prefix6 2001:db8:3:0010:: 2001:db8:3:ff00:: /60;
on commit {
I don't trust my vendors to run commands on my devices, it's not
personal. If there is a diagnostic that they want run, they need to be
able to articulate the operational risk, or we may want to validate in a
virtual or real physical router.
- Jared
On Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 11:07:
Hello, I wanted to share this for others. I had received a 10G DWDM optic from
my carrier and it wouldn’t work. Turns out the optic did not have the reach
programmed into it and JunOS didn’t handle this well.
I addressed this by writing the reach into byte 0x3 on the optic, which for the
FS o
Show configuration | display set | match traceoption
Do you have some enabled? That's the most likely reason.
Sent via RFC1925 compliant device
> On Mar 23, 2024, at 11:07 PM, Joerg Staedele via juniper-nsp
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> i notice (at least on 21.4R3-S6.5 and 21.2R3-S6.11) that /var
Thanks this is helpful as I've had issues with output of incomplete GPB if the
image does not support telemetry.
I'm also getting some incomplete data when I have all the enterprise protos
loaded, hence why I posted code that shows incomplete/unparsed protos.
Are there plans to distribute the
> On Mar 7, 2024, at 10:48 AM, Sebastian Wiesinger via juniper-nsp
> wrote:
>
> Hi Jared,
>
> thanks for the answer.
>
>> The second thing is, does your sensor path actually complete?
>
> What do you mean by complete?
[edit services analytics]
jared@Router# set sensor asdf resource ?
Pos
I’ve been spending some time on this as well, here’s the first thing I would
ask you:
If you do “show version | match tele”
Eg:
jared@Router> show version | match tele
{master:0}
jared@Router>
vs
jared@Router> show version | match tele
JUNOS na telemetry [21.4R3-S5.17]
{master:0}
What
> On Jan 9, 2024, at 7:22 AM, Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/9/24 11:47, Roger Wiklund wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah the ISP business is no fun, I feel like everyone secretly wishes they
>> can start buying Huawei again, It seems it's all about the lowest price per
>> 100G/400G
I’ll also comment that many software suites don’t scale to 10’s or 100’s of
million of paths
Keep in mind paths != routes and many folks don’t always catch the difference
between them. If you have a global network like 2914 (for example) you may be
peering with someone in 10-20 places globally
gt; On Sep 18, 2022, at 1:08 AM, Chuck Anderson via juniper-nsp
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 06:21:51PM -0400, Jared Mauch via juniper-nsp wrote:
>> Anyone else see their RPD start to core today? Seeing something weird,
>> unclear if it’s local to my network or oth
Anyone else see their RPD start to core today? Seeing something weird, unclear
if it’s local to my network or otherwise but two devices at the same time seem
to be having trouble, so puzzling.
Running 20.4R3.8
- jared
___
juniper-nsp mailing list jun
Most examples I've seen are GRPC dial in or out, but anyone using the UDP based
telemetry with success? What format are you using?
Curious as I'm seeing what appears to be corrupted packets be it PFE or RE
sourced and want to check what others are seeing.
- Jared
Sent via RFC1925 compliant
You should be able to downgrade, you may need no-validate to get there.
Sent via RFC1925 compliant device
> On Jul 17, 2022, at 5:00 PM, Randy Bush via juniper-nsp
> wrote:
>
> lost the ssd on a m7i. after replacing ssd, went to install.
>
> juniper download only had 15.1 install media, `i
14 matches
Mail list logo
