Pekka,
FYI
resolution request for multicast traffic are allowed to get not
answered from the RE ( due to policy for example) and therefor
we have disabled incoming interface throttling of multicast
resolve traffic in PR71205 which is done in 7.4R4 7.5R3 7.
Monday, August 20, 2007, 11:44:51 AM, you wrote:
LG>
LG>
LG> Hello,
LG>
LG> sorry for digging up this old thread.
LG>
LG> --- Josef Buchsteiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> this how you can easily calculate and make your math.
NK>
NK>
NK> Josef Buchsteiner wrote:
NK>
NK> Hi Josef,
NK>
>> show version
>> show system virtual-memory
NK>
NK> the output is below. But meanwhile of course I had to fix the problem
NK> and therefore moved some Gateway IPs to a differe
Nicolaj,
please post
show version
show system virtual-memory
thanks
Josef
Saturday, June 9, 2007, 8:16:01 PM, you wrote:
NK>
NK>
NK> Hello list,
NK>
NK> today I found the following messages in my /var/log/messages:
NK>
NK> Jun 9 19:59:53 re0 /kernel: Nexthop index allocation fa
Josef
FAK> I think multiclass will not required, my current configuration will work
for
FAK> the other two. Just need to know your comments.
FAK> Regards
FAK> Fahad
FAK> On 4/18/07, Josef Buchsteiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
&
uing/shaping/scheduler actions
already at lsq level.
Josef
>>
>> Can you provide this information.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Fahad
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/07, Josef Buchsteiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> &g
Fahad,
the behavior you see is normal and expected.
First to see the queue statistic on LSQ interface you most
likely forgot to add the subunit number as the interface
queue number will be zero all the time since this is the
entire LSQ interfaces. That
What version are you running ? If you are on 7.6-8.1 then you are
effected with PR95015. LACP did not used always the correct
interface index .32767 once you have received it. If you
deactivate/activate the ge-4/1/4 and ge-4/1/5 then you should
get the aggregate into up state.
so your conclusion is that it is unrelated to private or
public ASN. Can you look if there are a lot of
retransmissions during the convergence? Version 7.4R1
was effected by an improper handling of RFC1323 which can
result in very slow tcp
Sunday, January 28, 2007, 4:48:52 PM, you wrote:
ER>
ER>
ER> Hi all,
ER>
ER>
ER>
ER> I have a lot of hold entries in my forwarding table, how can I get rid of
ER> them or prevent them to be added in my forwarding-table?
as long as the system tries to send traffic to desti
Friday, December 29, 2006, 7:53:55 PM, you wrote:
pb>
pb>
pb> Hello Josef,
pb>
pb> thank you very much for your detailed reply.
pb>
>>pb> I have a couple of questions:
>>pb> a) Is it normal to have 32k L2 Descriptors for 8.2k Next-Hop Entries?
>>
>> yes.. since this
pb> I have a couple of questions:
pb> a) Is it normal to have 32k L2 Descriptors for 8.2k Next-Hop Entries?
yes.. since this is ethernet and the layer2 header size is
big for ethernet and you most likely have all three links on
one FPC. i.e 3 times more resources.
pb> b) Is t
12 matches
Mail list logo
