On 08/19/2015 09:18 AM, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 2015, at 8:51 AM, John Center wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Are there any limitations in using the SCBE2's 10G ports? I've heard
>> that they can't be used as regular data ports. Is this tru
Hi,
Are there any limitations in using the SCBE2's 10G ports? I've heard
that they can't be used as regular data ports. Is this true? I saw
that Rob Hass asked a similar question in December, but it looks like no
one replied to him.
Thanks.
-John
--
John Center
Villa
route removed. I usually have a dynamic protocol like
bgp for the wan links.
For a static connection, you could use the equivalent of netscreen ip
monitoring on the SRX. (Which I think is there now, but I haven't needed it.)
On Jul 19, 2011, at 9:46 AM, John Center wrote:
Hi,
I'm hopi
outing table, but I'm not sure how to approach it.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
-John
--
John Center
Villanova University
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
ng for this test, I guess :-)
As for commit-scripts - check if this one fulfills your requirement
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/community/junos/script-automation/library/configuration/deny-last/
HTH
Rgds
Alex
- Original Message -
From: "John Center"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, Jun
ne<*> to-zone<*>" regex) needs to match for the lower-level
config to be applied, even if there is no matching regex for lower-level
config (i.e no policy named PERMIT-ALL under [edit security policies)
Cheers
Alex
- Original Message -
From: "Alex"
To: "John Cen
Hi,
Is it possible to use apply-group to set the last security policy
between zones? I'm trying to avoid changing the default policy from
deny all, but I want to do something like this:
groups {
PERMIT-ALL {
security {
policies {
from-zone <*> to-zone
Hi Chuck,
Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 08:44:30AM -0500, John Center wrote:
What's happening is by specifying the aggregate route this way, it is
appears to be announcing the aggregate of all the ebgp routes it sees:
I'm unclear on what you mean here. Do you me
e still being announced, with a next hop of
SELF. I'm at a loss on the best way to approach this problem. I only
want to announce the locally-defined aggregate, not all of the others.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
-John
--
John
peers &
Internet2. (We hope to run IPv6, soon.)
Thanks.
-John
--
John Center
Villanova University
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> router--you still have only a single router/switch. So in your
> original scenario, there was a single point-of-failure of the router
> itself.
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 04:16:12PM -0500, John Center wrote:
>> To reply to my own message, the PIX standby interfaces have
To reply to my own message, the PIX standby interfaces have to be on the
same subnet as their corresponding primary interfaces.
-John
John Center wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> The only problem with using a switch is it's a single point of failure.
> I'm not sure h
Hi Chuck,
The only problem with using a switch is it's a single point of failure.
I'm not sure how failover would work with each PIX on separate routed
subnet. I'm looking into this now.
Thanks.
-John
Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 10:33:42AM
M120. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks.
-John
--
John Center
Villanova University
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
14 matches
Mail list logo