I've looked at the PyEZ and ncclient code, and basically they seem to take
the approach of just throwing away all namespace information. This seems icky
to me, and make me wonder if Netconf is going to be another SOAP - so many
implementation errors that interop ends up being a mess of
On Jun 17, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
On 17/06/14 14:49, Keegan Holley wrote:
I've looked at the PyEZ and ncclient code, and basically they seem
to take the approach of just throwing away all namespace
information. This seems icky to me, and make me
You shouldn’t be learning routes via an eBGP peering if they already have your
AS number in the path. Beyond your bouncing peer that could cause a routing
loop if the eBGP route took over while the iBGP route was still valid.
That being said, the juniper kit doesn’t treat iBGP routes
On Mar 14, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Will Orton w...@loopfree.net wrote:
I have a couple P(E)-4OC3-SON-SMIR that I purchased used and successfully ran
in a
production network in the 2007-2009 timeframe. Then, about 5 years ago the
OC3
links were taken out of service and the PICs sat in their
Maybe enough have come out of service that people
just trash them without comment.
This is definitely the case. Most of this stuff is probably being recycled
into raspberry pi servers and iPhones at this point. There are probably some
still in use. ISP’s in remote areas for example have
That would be one hell of a coincidence to have the same bug across different
implementations of NSR/NSF across two different vendors. That said, stranger
things literally have happened. There are a bunch of other possible causes
though.
What happened in the rest of the network? Was all
This is normal unless the firewall filters don’t work. MDNS/Bonjour is sent to
224.0.0.251 which is in the link local range and is at least read off the wire
by everything with an IP stack. 100pps would equate to about 64kbps worst
case. Still it’s best practice to have a FF on every box to
being new as the general
skeptcisim most router-jockeys have towards GUI/WebUI based management tools.
On Mar 3, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Keegan Holley no.s...@comcast.net wrote:
Curious if anyone is using JunOS Space in an SP network. I’m most interested
in the automation features for services
I agree. It’s more likely that you had an increase in packets that the switch
would process normally than the switch getting bored and suddenly deciding to
read packets off the wire. If there is an IP interface on the network that the
broadcast/multicast packets traverse, the switch must read
...@juniper.net wrote:
[hijacking part of a thread from Keegan]
Keegan Holley writes:
My gut says this is as much a product of Space being new as the general
skeptcisim most
router-jockeys have towards GUI/WebUI based management tools.
As the on-box CLI developer, this has always been an area
Curious if anyone is using JunOS Space in an SP network. I’m most interested
in the automation features for services provisioning, network management and
security management as well as the Service Now module. Just some basic
opinions. Do you love it? Hate it? Caveats? Bugs? That sort of
Are you sure that RE supports 10.0 code?
2012/5/30 Juan C. Crespo R. jcre...@ifxnw.com.ve
Hi Guys
I've been trying to install the Junos 10 into one M20 with Routing
Engine 3.0 (with one SSD of 8GB) and I getting this error
Adding jbase...
gzip: stdin: invalid compressed data--format
,
Regards,
Matjaž
On 15. dec. 2011, at 03:04, Keegan Holley wrote:
I
2011/12/14 Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:19:54PM -0500, Keegan Holley wrote:
Yea but it should have enough silicon to do simple policing in
hardware unless you have
I don't mean to offend, but I never understood these design via commitee
threads. The OP never lists enough info to allow anyone to give a
completely accurate answer. Then the answers and information provided are
so varied that the only way to be sure of what you're reading is to do same
The answer is pretty much the same with every code version. You can query
the list for what others think are relevant bugs, but it's largely
subjective. Depends on the size of your network, the services you use and
where you're upgrading from. If you're already in the 10.4 train upgrading
to a
I kind of agree with the OP on this one. As customers it wasn't our choice
to include a re-branded switch in the portfolio. It's simpler to be able
to get all the info in one spot, especially if all the other switches in
the family are listed there.
Just my $0.02.
2012/5/10 Aviva Garrett
+1 :)
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but are they different
enough to warrant all the different part numbers? How about a universal
SFP that works across similar products. I can't comment on the others but
I've seen the EX and MX/M SFP's interchanged. More often than not it
Labels aren't like routes per se. They only point to a next hop and not a
destination so you don't have to exchange labels between two routing
protocols in the same way you would routes. You only have to configure the
routers at the edge of each topology so that it runs both protocols. That
Go with the 480 if you go juniper. The cost difference between chassis is
negligible even if you won't use the extra slots for some time. Haven't
played with the cisco option much so I can't vouch for the 9k. Your
environment matters as well. What your engineers are comfortable with,
what your
CFM just performs a continuity check so I'm not sure it will help you
here. In other words it just checks if the CFM instance on the switch can
talk to the CFM instance on the router. If I understand your question
correctly you're trying to verify an access point leading to a customer and
not
Cust Rtr 2 CFM , since usually you
would want to use CFM to guarantee a service.
On 20 April 2012 18:20, Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote:
CFM just performs a continuity check so I'm not sure it will help you
here. In other words it just checks if the CFM instance on the switch
traffic coming back.
---
Ben Boyd
b...@sinatranetwork.com
http://about.me/benboyd
On Mar 22, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
Try changing your encapsulation to flexible ethernet services. It's been
a while since I set this up from scratch
Try changing your encapsulation to flexible ethernet services. It's been a
while since I set this up from scratch, but I've never seen a vpls neighbor
defined only site-id's and site ranges. That may not be your problem
though. Are your CE's tagging? encap vpls only supports untagged packets
Juniper publishes their recommended code so you may want to check there
first. Problem reports vary with different use cases so list member
opinions will vary. You may also want to verify that your RE's have the
required 1GB of flash. Some of the older RE-400 bundles do not have enough
flash to
The juniper website doesn't seem to have exact lengths or part numbers for
the small, medium and large stacking cables described in the hardware
guides. Just wondering if anyone on the list knew the length of each
cable. I was also curious if the cable that comes with the switch is small
or
I've never seen those particular errors but they look like fabric errors.
Have you checked your pfe counters and such?
2012/2/1 Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org
Has anyone seen these errors before and can shed some light on whether they
are serious or not?
Feb 1 06:29:19
2012/1/26 Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net:
On Friday, January 27, 2012 02:30:35 AM Keegan Holley wrote:
I agree... I think. MPLS has a better forwarding paradigm
and the IGP only core of P routers is a plus.
Well, I'm not so sure MPLS has a better forwarding paradigm
per se. If you're
Well NC (network control) is a completely different queue than EF
(expedited forwarding). This could be normal. Several things such as
routing protocol updates are set to NC by default because it is
network control traffic or part of the network control plane. Such
traffic should be prioritized
2012/1/26 Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net:
On Sunday, January 22, 2012 08:55:07 AM Derick Winkworth
wrote:
http://packetpushers.net/internet-as-a-service-in-an-mpls
-cloud/
We also want to avoid putting too much reliance on MPLS for
basic services like Internet access. We relegate
2012/1/26 Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi:
On (2012-01-26 10:52 -0500), Keegan Holley wrote:
stable. I wouldn't use the NC queue for other traffic if you can
avoid it and I wouldn't make this traffic best effort without figuring
Yet in INET facing router, jnpr default 95/5 split causes just
-Tree is running between my device and customer device.
I have no idea what is causing an increment in the network-control queue.
Any ideas would be appreciated.
Thanks and regards,
Gokhan
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com
wrote:
Well NC (network
2012/1/26 Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net:
On Friday, January 27, 2012 12:36:50 AM Keegan Holley wrote:
What do you use for signaling? It seems like overkill to
keep one kind of traffic from using the MPLS operations
if there are already LSP's between the source and the
destination
That's not exactly accurate. Cisco's kit also has some queuing setup
by default. The details vary by platform. Every cisco router I've
worked with defaults to trusting incoming markings rather then
rewriting them to best effort. So the cisco default is vaguely
similar. Also, in order for
2012/1/26 Pavel Lunin plu...@senetsy.ru:
Why not FRR everything? The control plane hit is negligable even if
your internet users wouldn't notice, care about, or even understand
the improvements.
FRRed traffic can follow very fancy routes eating bandwidth on the way. FRR
for high loads is
2012/1/26 Pavel Lunin plu...@senetsy.ru:
why would FRR LSP's take a route different than what the IGP would
converge to.
Because FRR uses a path from a different entry (PLP) to probably a different
exit (say, next-next-hop). When normal LSP (either SPF or CSPF calculated)
is a path from
Not to ruin the fun but there are appliances and hardware taps that are
purpose built for this. An appliance is probably going to be easier to
manage than an actual server. It also scales much better and provides
better fault tolerance.
2012/1/12 Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com
Everyone
I
2011/12/14 Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:19:54PM -0500, Keegan Holley wrote:
Yea but it should have enough silicon to do simple policing in
hardware unless you have every single other feature on the box
enabled. If a policer with no queueing
You can find the details on the juniper website. Off the top of my head I
know there are fewer queues and you can't do layer-2 and layer-3 services
on the same blade. There's a DPC-S that is layer 2 only. In general you
should consider the non-e legacy. I believe they might even be end of life
,
Jonas
Am Montag, den 12.12.2011, 11:42 -0500 schrieb Keegan Holley:
You can find the details on the juniper website. Off the top of my head
I
know there are fewer queues and you can't do layer-2 and layer-3 services
on the same blade. There's a DPC-S that is layer 2 only. In general you
Can you post the filter and a sh int extensive? You might have the burst
rate too small. What kind of load are you generation? Do you see the ff
counters incrementing?
2011/12/9 Gabriel Blanchard g...@teksavvy.ca
We have simple filters configured on our 10Gbps as well on our DPCs and
can
10.4R5.5 on 1G and 10G DPE-E's. Our MPC hardware doesn't seem to log this
message either.
Thanks.
2011/12/5 Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net
On Monday, December 05, 2011 12:39:54 AM Keegan Holley
wrote:
I'm seeing these come in once every few seconds after
upgrading some M/MX boxes
I'm seeing these come in once every few seconds after upgrading some M/MX
boxes to 10.4. Has anyone else run into this problem? I don't personally
agree with it but we log any any right now and filter on the syslog
servers. I'll probably open a JTAC case on monday, just wondering if
anyone else
Do you have family inet-VPN configured in the group stanza? All the routes are
reflected from the bgp.l3vpn.0 table. You don't have to define each vrf. If you
already configured the address family it sounds like it doesn't like your ext.
communities for some reason.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov
+1 GRE between loopbacks. Why not just use RSVP for labeling and do L2vpn
or pseudowire. Both work though.
2011/11/3 Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net
On 11/3/2011 1:45 PM, Terry Jones wrote:
Simple enough using a vlan-ccc. The problem is that I have to setup the
vlan-ccc over a GRE tunnel.
A spanning tree TCN would do it as well. It would be nice if configuring
STP at the edge caused the box to TCN when it gives up mastership. I
haven't tried it but I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
2011/10/20 David Ball davidtb...@gmail.com
On 20 October 2011 14:00, William Cooper
switches are tagged only. Cisco PVST+ sends the
BPDUs with a VLAN tag.
I remember seeing some blurb about not connecting two CE devices to each
other if they are connected to two different PEs with the same site-id.
Is this one switch or two?
Phil
On 10/11/11 4:14 PM, Keegan Holley
I'm trying to get my handle on vpls loop avoidance and I can't remember the
default behavior regarding site-id's and node-id's. I remember reading
about it in one config guide or another but I can't seem to find it now.
I'm trying to remember if broadcast, multicast and unknown unicast is
flooded
of the standards based protocols.
On 11 October 2011 20:19, Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote:
I'm trying to get my handle on vpls loop avoidance and I can't remember
the
default behavior regarding site-id's and node-id's. I remember reading
about it in one config guide or another but I
If they all go at the same time it may indicate that the chassis connections
to it is bad. Can you try the same fans in a different chassis?
2011/10/10 Jon Helman j...@ic2net.net
Graham,
Previously, I was only receiving a syslog report that the upper fan tray
had
failed.
I went to
To juniper: If you are going to include syntax checking please include line
numbers like other things that check other types of syntax. The following
does not constitute a valid error message:
re0:
configuration check succeeds
re1:
*error: syntax error: ;*
error: remote load-configuration
tunnel-services bandwidth 1g
2011/9/30 Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com
Ok, I'm stumped. Configuring vpls and everything seems to be working but
the local router interfaces. They come up as NP or hardware not present.
The DPC and pic are up and working fine and I've tried it with tunnel
2011/9/27 Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 01:18:05PM -0700, Derick Winkworth wrote:
I'm trying to find an archived discussion or presentation discussing
why exactly the industry generally settled on having a separate
FIB table for each VRF vs having one FIB
Now in dcef mode
With a separate FIB+Adjacency tables per vrf
You could copy only subset of FIB and Adjacency tables to the linecard
based on which vrfs the interfaces on the particular line-card are asociated
with
-to save up some memory
(than a proces would be needed to request FIB resend
2011/9/27 Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.net
Hi Keegan,
over another. However, if the vrf's all have separate tables in the real
world then that should require the table lookup to come before the prefix
lookup. If not there would be no way to figure out which fib to search.
For packets
Is it always necessary to take in a full table? Why or why not? In light
of the Saudi Telekom fiasco I'm curious what others thing. This question is
understandably subjective. We have datacenters with no more than three
upstreams. We would obviously have to have a few copies of the table for
2011/9/20 Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net
On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 01:26:07 AM Keegan Holley
wrote:
Is it always necessary to take in a full table? Why or
why not? In light of the Saudi Telekom fiasco I'm
curious what others thing. This question is
understandably
2011/9/20 Pavel Lunin plu...@senetsy.ru
Is it always necessary to take in a full table? Why or why not? In light
of the Saudi Telekom fiasco I'm curious what others thing. This question
is
understandably subjective. We have datacenters with no more than three
upstreams. We would
I'm hearing this may not be fixed until 10.3 and later. I'm still waiting
for confirmation from juniper though. I'm not sure if I would consider this
a bug or a misinterpretation of the RFC. That message is for malformed
routes/updates not for routes/updates with things we don't like in them.
You can't filter it because the operation that causes the flap happens
before the route filters are evaluated.
2011/9/9 Clay Haynes chay...@centracomm.net
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
Well, the update is well formatted and proper, the
That's good to know. I thought it was fixed in 9.X code until a 9.6R2.11
router started having issues.
2011/9/9 Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net
On Saturday, September 10, 2011 03:20:34 AM Chris Adams
wrote:
I've got an M10i running JUNOS 9.3R4.4 that is logging
the same error about
where are you pinging from? inside the vlan or outside of it? Check for
mac-addresses. If you are learning the devices mac addresses on both ports
in the correct vlans it's not the switch or the config. Have you tried
another device in the same port or swapping the two devices? Can you post
2011/8/25 Brendan Regan brendan.bre...@gmail.com
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone knew how to calculate how many routes can be
taken
in on an MX80 with 2 Full EBGP peers and 1 IBGP peer?
I dont' think this is something you can calculate. Most vendors do
extensive testing and come up with a
2011/8/25 Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi
On (2011-08-25 10:36 +0100), Danny Vernals wrote:
Using it to monitor availability worked fine but if you're planning on
monitoring latency and jitter then my findings were to do this you'd
need an MS-DPC. With an MS-DPC the service can use two-way time
2011/8/25 Daniel Roesen d...@cluenet.de
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 07:52:54PM -0400, Keegan Holley wrote:
They are saying that the new 16G RE's can handle 250M routes. How is
this
possible if none of the daemons are 64bit?
Multiple logical-system instances (== multiple rpd processes
Interestingly enough my SE told us this is possible at lease on our Mx480 and
MX960 boxes. Our lab boxes are otherwise engaged at the moment so we havent
tested. One note regarding general computing though. The processor can only
address 4G (3.8 or so actually) of ram with a 32 bit word size.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 24, 2011, at 9:13 AM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com said:
Interestingly enough my SE told us this is possible at lease on our Mx480
and MX960 boxes. Our lab boxes are otherwise engaged
Does anyone have any experiences with RPM on MX boxes? I'm a bit leary of
monitoring daemons and probes running directly on routes. Then there's the
recent bug circus with the 9 and 10 code trains. I also can't remember
coming across it anywhere in the wild. Just wondering if anyone has had
can handle 250M routes. How is this
possible if none of the daemons are 64bit?
-- Weitergeleitete Nachricht
Von: Thomas Eichhorn t...@te3networks.de
Datum: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:27:14 +0100
An: Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Betreff
Not sure if others will have a better answer, but I don't think this is
possible. As far as I know BGP doesn't support multi-pathing so there isn't
a way to have two next hops used for the same prefix. You might be able to
peer with a loopback address and use your IGP to create equal cost routes
I thought advertise inactive just configured the routers to advertise the
entire BGP RIB instead of only advertising the routes in the routing-table.
How would you configure multipathing once the routes were there?
2011/8/10 Stefan Fouant sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net
Have you tried the
2011/8/10 Humair Ali humair.s@gmail.com
just to clarify ,
you have :
PE2 with 2 link , 1 to RR1 (let's call it link 1) and 1 to RR2 (link 2)
PE3 with 2 link , 1 to RR1 (let's call it Link 3) and 1 to RR2 (link4)
you could set local pref to link to PE2 to 150 (RR1 to PE2 will be
I think the advertise inactive knob turns that off, but I don't know for
sure because I've never tried it. I know it's not supported on cisco
routers. The reason for it is the size of the BGP table. So if the table
is 400k routes and you have 5 different ISP's and you advertise every route
that
2011/8/10 Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.net
Hi Keegan,
I think the advertise inactive knob turns that off, but I don't know for
sure because I've never tried it. I know it's not supported on cisco
routers. The reason for it is the size of the BGP table. So if the table
is 400k routes and
2011/8/10 Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.net
Hi Keegan,
By default Junos and IOS-XR advertise only those best path in BGP
which actually are installed into forwarding. Advertising inactive
knob will overwrite it.
Wouldn't this lead to traffic being blackholed? If all the routes
strength so the transmitting device has
no way of knowing what the other device is receiving if anything at all. In
general the path is either good or bad. The signal will vary from one
second to the next but not because of any attempt at boosting the signal.
2011/8/3 Keegan Holley keegan.hol
2011/8/2 Martin T m4rtn...@gmail.com
What is the acceptable Rx power in case of SFP/XFP? For example, here
are XFP Tx and Rx signals from six FXP's:
1:
Laser output power: 1.2920 mW / 1.11 dBm
Laser rx power: 0.0285 mW / -15.45 dBm
2:
2011/8/2 Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
if these are sr multimode optics, the -15 number is low the -7 number is
marginal and everything else is decent.
either the -15 one is quite long ( for sr) or needs to be
replugged/cleaned/reterminated
Yea I agree. The -15 is a bit low unless it's
You can create a ccc based on port and just everything that comes in the
port to the other end regardless of vlan or encapsulation. There is also no
mac learning to worry about. This in my experience is easier to manage than
q-in-q which requires mac learning and spanning-tree. The down side is
2011/7/9 Alex D. listensamm...@gmx.de
Thanks for the replies.
Are you sure that it is all the BGP routes?
I didn't examine all routes in detail, but the quantity brought me to that
conclusion.
Should be easy to confirm from where the externals are originating
through its router-id.
2011/7/9 Alex D. listensamm...@gmx.de
Hello,
we have a MPLS enabled backbone with about 30 routers. IS-IS is used as
IGP. All routers have iBGP sessions with our two route-reflectors and get
BGP full-feed from them.
Now i try to setup OSPF with area 0.0.0.0 for connecting customers to one
shared segment upstream from the firewall.
2011/7/8 Stefan Fouant sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net
On 7/8/2011 12:28 AM, Keegan Holley wrote:
Could be interesting. I've rarely seen firewall as a service done right
though. It's hard to keep, cpu, memory usage, DDOS attacks,
misconfiguration
Could be interesting. I've rarely seen firewall as a service done right
though. It's hard to keep, cpu, memory usage, DDOS attacks,
misconfiguration, etc. of one customers from affecting the other customers
that share hardware. That being said there are better platforms to run the
firewall
Can you elaborate? This isn't really much info to go on. multi-hop BGP is
pretty simple though. In fact it's pretty much identical to the way most
configure iBGP (sans mpls). You peer based on an address that is not
directly connected to you. Once that is established you start receiving
Does anyone know why a BGP session would constantly flap because of an MTU
mismatch. I'm sure it's MTU since that is what fixed the problem. The
peering is between a cisco and a juniper and both support PMTU discovery. I
would assume any mismatches would be settled by the TCP MSS negotiation or
Keegan
how did u solve the problem of bgp flap in first place.
Regards
Abhijeet.C
- Original Message -
From: Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com
To: juniper-nsp juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:08 PM
Subject: [j-nsp] BGP MTU Mismatch
Does anyone
2011/6/21 Chris Evans chrisccnpsp...@gmail.com
Just making sure. A lot of folks rely on others in forums vs the vendor. We
pay them for support and how will they know of problems when they aren't
reported.
Not only that but there would be alot more consulting income around if this
forum
And then there was vyatta...
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:59:15PM -0400, jnprb...@gmail.com wrote:
Although expensive, you can buy the JCS1200 with 64-bit Junos to run
as a standalone RR. It's
10.4R4 seems usable on MX960 with mixed DPC/MPC. There is a packet
discard bug on MX80 though - it randomly mistakes non-first fragments
as L2TP packets and as no L2TP service is configured, discards those
packets.
Would you happen to have the PR for this?
2011/6/2 Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:59:15PM -0400, jnprb...@gmail.com wrote:
Although expensive, you can buy the JCS1200 with 64-bit Junos to run
as a standalone RR. It's probably more economical if you could also
benefit from VPNv4 RRs for MPLS VPN
The EX doesn't support L3VPN/VRF. You'd have to use an MX80 at the least.
You could do pseudowires per customer though.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Johan Borch johan.bo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have a question regarding MPLS on ex-series. I have a situation where i
need to connect
The EX doesn't support vpls either. The implementation described in the pdf
also uses an MX for the mpls vpn portion.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Cristiano Monteiro crmont...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
Maybe this link helps you
the first one is going to a IP next hop and packets require an IP look up.
Either it's not using mpls or is only using the inner (vpn) label for that
hop. The second is taking a real-live lsp and does not perform an IP
lookup, so no IP next hop is needed, just an LSP and a label to push.
On
I don't think OSPF carries multicast. I know cisco routers have a neighbor
statement that will force it to unicast hello's I've never tried it on a
juniper. I think if you do GRE over IPSEC (not to be confused with IPSEC
over GRE) the multicast will work as well. It depends on your endpoints
sorry I meant IPSEC doesn't carry multicast. OSPF technically doesn't
carry anything.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Keegan Holley
keegan.hol...@sungard.comwrote:
I don't think OSPF carries multicast. I know cisco routers have a neighbor
statement that will force it to unicast hello's
What does your policer config look like? I've seen some links have problems
with large packet sizes if the burst was set too low. Also, I think the
iperf packet loss calculation also counts some kind of internal buffering
loss. I'm couldn't find it on google but I remember reading something a
We migrated a trunk connection from Cisco 7206 to MX480. All the BGP session
was up for a while goes down. The following is the error message in MX480
(10.2R2.11):
rpd[1358]: task_connect: task BGP_remoteAS.a.b.c.d.14+179 addr a.b.c.d+179:
Operation not permitted
rpd[1358]:
Have you thought about doing it manually? Neither type of filter (assuming
you're not talking about route-maps or QOS policies) is that complex. It
would probably take you longer to find a tool and use it than it would to
look up route-filters on the juniper website.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at
Have you thought about doing it manually? Neither type of filter
(assuming
you're not talking about route-maps or QOS policies) is that complex.
It
would probably take you longer to find a tool and use it than it would
to
look up route-filters on the juniper website.
+1 | A
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:15 PM, TiM t...@muppetz.com wrote:
On Wed, March 23, 2011 8:54 am, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Hi,
sarcasm
To whomever who decided to introduce new features in a R3 release, thanks
;-( Specifically installing jloader separately is highly appreciated.
/sarcasm
You'll
So, I'm looking for some form of stacking router/switch solution that could
handle BGP/OSPF/~75 MIR and CIR rules per interface with enforcement by
customer subnet (they are all on the same interface and vlan)/and tcpdump
for easy debug of customer connectivity problems..
Possible with
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
