On Jun 17, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Phil Mayers 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.
>
> 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
ite
> useful.
>
> On 06/04/2014 17:51, "Keegan Holley" wrote:
>
>> I¹ve often wondered what the point of an IRB on an ethernet only platform
>> is. In the olden days IRB/CRB interfaces were used to bridge TDM
>> interfaces into ethernet vlans to for the purpo
I’ve often wondered what the point of an IRB on an ethernet only platform is.
In the olden days IRB/CRB interfaces were used to bridge TDM interfaces into
ethernet vlans to for the purposes of pure evil. With ethernet you can just
add your physical interfaces to the same vlan. I suppose you c
> 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
On Mar 14, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Will Orton 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 routers (an M10
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 differentl
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 traf
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 p
:
> [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
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
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 wrote:
> Curious if anyone is using JunOS Space in an SP network. I’m most interested
> in the automation features for services provisioning, n
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 thing
gt; Thank you all for your feedback,
> Regards,
>
> Matjaž
>
> On 15. dec. 2011, at 03:04, Keegan Holley wrote:
>
> > I
> >
> >
> > 2011/12/14 Richard A Steenbergen
> >
> >> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:19:54PM -0500, Keegan Holley wrote:
> &g
Are you sure that RE supports 10.0 code?
2012/5/30 Juan C. Crespo R.
> 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 violated
> tar
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
resear
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 n
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
h
I assumed you were exploring the configuration of the signaling protocols.
My point was that I can't think of a situation (not saying that one doesn't
exist) where I would run both protocols on purpose. At most it would happen
during a cutover from one to the other. I can't think of many things on
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
bein
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
or Cust Rtr 1 to remote end Cust Rtr 2 CFM , since usually you
> would want to use CFM to guarantee a service.
>
>
> On 20 April 2012 18:20, Keegan Holley wrote:
>
>> CFM just performs a continuity check so I'm not sure it will help you
>> here. In other words it jus
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 you
P traffic and
> tagging correctly, but it isn't decapsulating the STP 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, 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
fr
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 r
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
> Has anyone seen these errors before and can shed some light on whether they
> are serious or not?
>
>
>
> Feb 1 06:29:19 dis1.bridgenorth1 tfeb0 MQ(0)
2012/1/26 Mark Tinka :
> 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
>
2012/1/26 Pavel Lunin :
>
>
>>
>> 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 head-
2012/1/26 Pavel Lunin :
>
>> 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 like sen
>
>> 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
2012/1/26 Mark Tinka :
> 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 th
anning-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
> wrote:
>&g
2012/1/26 Saku Ytti :
> 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 defaul
2012/1/26 Mark Tinka :
> 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 MPLS-based
> servic
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
That's really subjective so it depends on your network. Placing the full
internet table in a VRF will could cause it to be advertised to PE routers
that may not need it, but if your routers can handle that it may not be a
big deal. Also, filtering routes for things like partial tables becomes a
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
> Everyone pointed out really good
I
2011/12/14 Richard A Steenbergen
> 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 que
the layer2 card.
>
> Best regards,
> 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 s
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
2011/12/9 Chris Morrow
>
>
> On 12/09/2011 12:58 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
> > 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?
>
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
> We have simple filters configured on our 10Gbps as well on our DPCs and
> can definitely push
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
> On Monday, December 05, 2011 12:39:54 AM Keegan Holley
> wrote:
>
> > I'm seeing these come in once every few seconds after
> > upg
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
> 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. Now the questi
You can build an LSP over the GRE tunnel and do L2VPN or EoMPLS/Pseudowire.
I'm not sure if it's supported on the J-series though.
2011/11/3 Terry Jones
> Hey Folks,
>
> Hoping for a little helpŠor confirmation of setup. I don't have time to lab
> up and need to make sure the setup will do as I
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
> On 20 October 2011 14:00, William Cooper wrote:
> > I might be confused... but
your CE 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
#x27;m also curious why cisco pvst works
and none of the standards based protocols.
>
> On 11 October 2011 20:19, Keegan Holley wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to get my handle on vpls loop avoidance and I can't remember
>> the
>> default behavior regarding site-id'
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
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
> Graham,
>
>
>
> Previously, I was only receiving a syslog report that the upper fan tray
> had
> failed.
>
>
>
> I went to the ro
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 failed
pc 0 pic 0 tunnel-services bandwidth 1g
2011/9/30 Keegan Holley
> 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 i
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
bandwidth 1g" configured under the chassis stanza as well as no tunnel
services
2011/9/27 Robert Raszuk
> 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 coming
> 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
2011/9/27 Gert Doering
> 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 table with a
I don't think those support 10.4 code. 1G of flash and 512M of RAM is
required and there is no such upgrade for those RE's. Even if you used
third-party parts I wouldn't trust it due to the age of those platforms..
2011/9/22 Joerg Staedele
> Hi there,
>
> we run 10.4R6 without any problems
2011/9/20 Pavel Lunin
>
> 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 hav
2011/9/20 Mark Tinka
> 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
> &g
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
c
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
> 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 that prefix, but it
You can't filter it because the operation that causes the flap happens
before the route filters are evaluated.
2011/9/9 Clay Haynes
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> >Well, the update is well formatted and proper, the handling in
> JunOS
> > is buggy. You don'
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.
Ei
2011/8/25 Brendan Regan
> 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 number that they ar
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
the
2011/8/25 Saku Ytti
> 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
> > st
2011/8/25 Daniel Roesen
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:04:03AM +0530, MSusiva wrote:
> > Can someone please help me understand the following,
> >
> > * Why do I need to configure "auto-export" on Hub router?
> >
> > If I remove the "auto-export" on the Hub router, I'm not receiving the
> > local, d
2011/8/25 Daniel Roesen
> 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 (== multip
are saying that the new 16G RE's can handle 250M routes. How is this
possible if none of the daemons are 64bit?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > -- Weitergeleitete Nachricht
> > Von: Thomas Eichhorn
> > Datum: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:27:14 +0100
> &
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 any
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 24, 2011, at 9:13 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Keegan Holley said:
>> 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
>> ha
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.
2011/8/10 Robert Raszuk
> 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 for a
>>
2011/8/10 Robert Raszuk
> 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 you hav
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 Humair Ali
> 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
> preferred), and l
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
> Have you tried the advertise-inactive knob on the RR?
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
ar as I know and as Lane confirmed, the Tx signal should be always
> consistent..
>
The devices don't communicate signal 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 s
2011/8/2 Joel Jaeggli
>
> 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 is at the
2011/8/2 Martin T
> 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:
> Laser out
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.
> 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.
> 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
> of our PE rout
ndwidth in
some shared segment upstream from the firewall.
2011/7/8 Stefan Fouant
> 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,
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 insta
2011/6/26 Mark Tinka
> On Monday, June 27, 2011 06:56:48 AM Keegan Holley wrote:
>
> > I think the general attitude is positive towards them.
> > They are a good compliment to the M/T series and
> > generally solid flexible boxes. You should probably
> > include ho
I think the general attitude is positive towards them. They are a good
compliment to the M/T series and generally solid flexible boxes. You should
probably include how you plan to use them in your question. For example a
few list members complain about multicast/IGMP bugs and other issues with
t
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
routes
gt; how did u solve the problem of bgp flap in first place.
>
> Regards
> Abhijeet.C
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Keegan Holley
> To: juniper-nsp
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:08 PM
> Subject: [j-nsp] BGP MTU Mismatch
>
> Does anyone
bytes.
> Cheers
> Alex
>
>
> - Original Message ----- From: "Ido Szargel"
> To: "Keegan Holley" ; "juniper-nsp" <
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP MTU Mismatch
>
>
>
>
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
2011/6/21 Chris Evans
> 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 didn't exist
That bei
And then there was vyatta...
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Richard A Steenbergen 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 probably more ec
>
> 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?
__
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
