line jflow will cause the fpc to reboot, but from what I
read adjusting the size
of the flow hash table will cause that.
Any idea what is correct here? I would think that just enabling it would not
cause an FPC to restart.
Thanks,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp m
captures on several interfaces is this going to
be too much to do load wise?
The sites in question schools, are low bandwidth, mostly 30 megs with one at 90.
Thanks,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https
are using for monitoring specific things
like
the stats of RPM services.
Thanks,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Is there a command on JunOS similar to the cisco command:
show controller utilization
Thanks,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
came up on the MX and it looks ok. Am I going to get bitten in the
ass
at some point for not running LACP?
Docs I see always configure LACP for LAGs, and mention not running it but never
really
why you would.
Thanks,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp mailing list
Resending with edits...doh.
On 10/17/2013 2:00 PM, Keith wrote:
Hi.
Any reason not to run LACP on a LAG link?
Setting up a new LAG with some gear on our MX and have setup the AE
interface and turned it up, but have not actually cut traffic over to it yet.
The vendor of the gear the MX
existing import/export policy that is used
on one bgp
group already on
a new one?
My SRX240 (one of my lab devices) doesn't complain and my neighbors come up
when I
configure it on the
lab stuff so I'm guessing our MX wont have a problem either.
Thanks,
Keith
On 7/18/2013 6:22 PM, Payam Chychi
We recently just turned up another connection to one of our upstreams, so now we have two.
One is a GE the other is a 10GE.
We are getting into new territory here.
The GE connection is in use and working fine.
These two connections home to two different routers on our upstream.
As the BGP
am guessing we are being terminated on different routers
on their side).
My lab router didn't complain so I'm guessing its probably ok.
Thanks,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo
On 7/8/2013 10:26 AM, Keith wrote:
Have this setup in the lab on some srx's but want to get some info
on this.
We have an upstream provider that we use a config:
set interfaces ge-0/1/0 vlan-tagging
set interfaces ge-0/1/0 encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services
set interfaces ge-0/1/0 unit
M?
Thanks,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
d
Swapped cables etc, my question is can these 1000BaseT SFP's work at 100M? I can configure them as such
but do they actually work at 100M?
Thanks,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.
Try to make this short. I don't have any gear that I can run in a lab setting to
really get to know how Juniper BGP stuff works so we get some help and
they give me access to an MX to play on once in a while.
Have 3 BGP peers. Have four networks we are announcing.
Peer #1 - all 4 networks are
On 1/10/2013 5:28 AM, Gabriel Blanchard wrote:
Yes, just bought the book, for anyone that has MXes deployed...highly
recommend.
And Doug, just noticed, didn't you write this book? :-P
Says Douglas Richard Hanks on my copy. Which is getting a little more thumb
eared
by the day. :-)
On 6/5/2012 5:28 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 04:41:57PM -0700, Keith wrote:
When you have multiple trap targets setup, does the trap go to all the targets
or
just the first one in the list? Been hunting around and cant seem to find the
answer to this.
All targets. SNMP
This should now be in production. Please let us know if there are further
issues.
Regards,
Keith Redfield
Juniper Networks, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Harry Reynolds
Sent: Wednesday
We need to get something in our work lab for testing the odd thing out
and just to bang on.
Is the SRX line, say the 240 or or 210 enough to run a very simple
BGP config (like say sending a few /22's and receiving a default route)
and RIP/OSPF?
Seems we can pick up an SRX for 600-2000 depending
actively
monitor?
Thanks,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi. You folks have been great at answering some of
my questions regarding our MX480, but have come across
some big problems that me and the person who signed
the PO are not very pleased about.
A month or so ago I found we had a bad MPC card. Ok so
we RMA'd it.
This week I came on site to do
On 4/13/2011 11:11 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:09:12AM -0700, Keith wrote:
We saw random reboots, sometimes hourly, with the first MPC
and this was on 10.4R2.6. Juniper wanted to RMA it.
When the latest MPC and MIC arrive I will update to 10.4R3.4
and see how
Wireshark, I do not see any traps
coming into the host I have setup to receive traps.
I just want to be sure before I start digging through the
trap host configs and PIX config in front of the NMS
to make sure I have them setup correctly.
Thanks,
Keith
to your NMS.
Cheers,
Andy
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Keith
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 11:27 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] SNMP command: request snmp spoof-trap
Just going
,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
) doesn't actually make their own
optics, they just slap a label on optics from a variety of other
suppliers. Fortunately Juniper doesn't play games with vendor locking of
optics, so you shouldn't have any problems.
Ah, thanks for that.
Regards,
Keith
of the router twice now.
Thanks,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Thanks for the replies.
I managed to configure both RE0 and RE1 without locking myself out
or having to rollback.
Sure is different than Cisco gear thats for sure.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
as planned.
Regards,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
some new books. Looking at Amazon, most of
the books are at least five years old. Are any of them still relevant
enough to
warrant purchasing them?
Anyone have books they want to recommend?
Thanks,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp
/en/training/technical_education/
I am a novice on Juniper for sure. I have been going over Junipers site
for the last few days so am getting some good info there, but some
good suggestions have come from the list too.
Thanks,
Keith
___
juniper-nsp
We've located the problem and have a fix - just waiting for a deploy window.
Thanks all for your patience. IE and Firefox are being more forgiving on this
one.
-Keith Redfield
eSupport team
Juniper Networks
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp
On Tue, 11 May 2010, Mark Tinka wrote:
|-On Tuesday 11 May 2010 11:21:59 am Keith wrote:
|-
|- It pretty much will be used just for our main gateway
|- router. We are having a hard time deciding if it fits
|- for us. We have to get 2 ASR's to get some redundency,
|- while the MX has it all
On Tue, 11 May 2010, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
|-On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:38:41PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
|- Richard's suggestion to consider the MX80 is a good idea,
|- especially if you're looking at having two for redundancy.
|- My main concern is JUNOS 10.x, especially since you're
|-
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Chris Evans wrote:
|-I think it depends on what you are trying to do with the device. To run the
|-MX with those line modules you need to run later code which juniper is
|-having some serious bug issues lately. We have both the asr and mx in our
|-environments. I would
On Mon, 10 May 2010, OBrien, Will wrote:
|-I've been very pleased with my mx960s. Policing features are very effective.
I'm getting full bgp tables and a fairly large ospf set. The new re failover is
supposed to be excellent but I've not tested it yet. I replaced a re a while
back and it took
This thread made me curious, so I checked one of our M320s (on 8.3R3.4) and
came up with a very similar memory utilization.
You're using ~90% of 768MB - 691MB
We're using ~30% of 2048MB - 634MB
So it looks like the memory requirements are creeping up if you're holding a
full table (with its
36 matches
Mail list logo
