Re: [j-nsp] Juniper BNG - Termination of N:1 subscribers into different RI (DEMUX)

Hi, It is possible - basically, you should have an almost identical configuration for aaa and dhcp server in both routing contexts. krasi@test>show subscribers Interface IP Address/VLAN ID User Name LS:RI demux0.3221225528 1444

Re: [j-nsp] arp bug workaround (mx204)

ifference? > > If you need the full config that I am trying to commit, please send a > direct mail. It contains user IP addresses so I am not happy about having > that on the mailing list. > > Thanks, > > Baldur > > > > Den tor. 5. nov. 2020 kl. 12.48 skrev Kr

Re: [j-nsp] arp bug workaround (mx204)

Hi Baldur, Indeed, you are persistent in asking for that issue ;-). The idea is to use the RFC1925 6a) - "It is always possible to add another level of indirection." krasi@test# show interfaces ps201 unit 60 demux-source inet; vlan-tags outer 2301 inner 1711; family inet { unnumbered-address

Re: [j-nsp] static arp with unnumbered-address

Hello, The static arp assignments are possible by borrowing the idea from subscriber management access or access-internal routes (subs management will do that automatically upon subscriber dhcp binding): krasi@test# show interfaces ge-0/0/0 flexible-vlan-tagging; encapsulation

Re: [j-nsp] ARP resolution algorithm? Storage of MX transit packets?

Hi, If you use the MX as subscriber access dhcp server/relay it will populate the host routes(access-internal) and arp entries automatically upon dhcp negotiation. In that setup usually the ethernet interface(segment) is unnumbered and only /32 host routes to subscribers are installed - no

Re: [j-nsp] ARP resolution algorithm? Storage of MX transit packets?

if 90 throttled". I haven't seen these messages recently? - I do not know how NH rsvl punt policers are integrated with DDoS arp/resolve system. Best Regards, Krasi On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 18:12, Saku Ytti wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 16:22, Krasimir Avramski wrote: > > > Yes,

Re: [j-nsp] ARP resolution algorithm? Storage of MX transit packets?

Hi, I don't think you can turn it off in JunOS. So they'd have to change > code anyhow, at which point, I'd rather take translation than static > config. > Yes, you can for ipv4/ipv6:

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Input Scheduling/Shaping

Hi, > but it's just not allowed through software on the 10GE ports. > It is allowed since 16.1 > I'm not certain but I faintly recall that the fixed chassis MX80 didn't > have QX. > Correct. Best Regards, Krasi ___ juniper-nsp mailing list

Re: [j-nsp] PE-CE issue with OSPF routes not getting into routing table

Hi, The route from your output has DN bit set (Opt 0xa2) and it is loop prevention mechanism as described in rfc4577. More info from Juniper docs: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.2/topics/usage-guidelines/vpns-configuring-routing-between-pe-and-ce-routers-in-layer-3-vpns.html Best

Re: [j-nsp] Longest Match for LDP (RFC5283)

Hi It is used in Access Nodes(default route to AGN) with LDP-DOD(Downstream-on-Demand) Seamless MPLS architectures - RFC7032 A sample with LDP->BGP-LU redistribution on AGN is here

Re: [j-nsp] mx960 to mx960 via ciena 6500 - mtu smaller in the middle

> > If you are carrying the full table for example, then you could end up with > BGP UPDATE messages 16000 > bytes long they won't cross the link. Y Just to mention that rfc4271 states maximum bgp message size of 4096, although there is a draft

Re: [j-nsp] Experience with MX10003

Hi Niall, The turbo fib is set of route convergence optimisations in rpd(kernel update thread), kernel and pfe(trio). Released in 15.1F6 with ~25k r/s,

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-1300 - memory upgrade possible?

Hi, We did it with no problems ~10 years ago. We used 2x 2GB registered ECC. For more details contact me offlist. Best Regards, Krasi On 2 January 2018 at 14:34, Tore Anderson wrote: > I've got a few MX-es with the RE-S-1300 in my network. While out of > support, they work just

Re: [j-nsp] error: the ethernet-link-fault-management subsystem is not running on a QFX5100

CFM is not supported on QFX family. ACX5K supports this feature. Best Regards, Krasi On 23 October 2017 at 12:39, Vasil Kanev wrote: > Hi there, > > On an QFX5100 VC i`m trying to configure OAM CFM but when i try to check > status i got this: > > error: the

Re: [j-nsp] ACX control plane filter

Had already been answered in the thread: "The script is building only /32 "local" prefixes. Your suggestion is building "direct" prefixes and when matching at the FTF, you can achieve "undesired" results." Best Regards, Krasi On 22 March 2017 at 20:00, Eduardo Schoedler

Re: [j-nsp] ISIS route leaking from Level2 to Level1

Hi Cydon, Lower the aggregatde route preference below 18. Best Regards, Krasi On 18 November 2016 at 13:11, Cydon Satyr wrote: > Hello experts, > > If I create an aggregate route on L1/2 router and export it to Level1 ("to > level 1"), this route does not have up/down

Re: [j-nsp] Communities on l2vpn instances

Hi, You can follow the vpls example (l2vpn/l3vpn/l2circuit traffic mapping is the same): http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos15.1/topics/usage-guidelines/vpns-mapping-vpls-traffic-to-specific-lsps.html install-nexthop lsp lsp-name: Use the "strict" option to enable strict mode,

Re: [j-nsp] juniper router reccomendations

Built-in ports H-QoS(MX80/104) is supported on 16.1: https://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos16.1/information-products/topic-collections/release-notes/16.1/topic-105380.html#jd0e4451 Best Regards, Krasi On 29 July 2016 at 15:00, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > > Saku

Re: [j-nsp] Problem with BGP

Hi, What is the reason of using "local-as " feature? You can try to set "loops 2" option as described in the link. Best Regards, Krasi On 28 April 2016 at 09:58, Johan Borch

Re: [j-nsp] protect ssh and telnet

Hey Aaron, file show /var/db/scripts/commit/ifl-addr.slax version 1.0; ns junos = "http://xml.juniper.net/junos/*/junos;; ns xnm = "http://xml.juniper.net/xnm/1.1/xnm;; ns jcs = "http://xml.juniper.net/junos/commit-scripts/1.0;; import "../import/junos.xsl"; match configuration { var

Re: [j-nsp] protect ssh and telnet

rf “one” interfaces… > > > > My vrf “one” is where my public/vulnerable ip’s live… > > > > I don’t need to protect my default core vrf which is all 10.x.x.x and that > domain is behing a mgmt. net firewall boundary > > > > Aaron > > > > *From:*

Re: [j-nsp] protect ssh and telnet

terfaces… >> >> >> >> My vrf “one” is where my public/vulnerable ip’s live… >> >> >> >> I don’t need to protect my default core vrf which is all 10.x.x.x and >> that domain is behing a mgmt. net firewall boundary >> >> >> >

Re: [j-nsp] protect ssh and telnet

Hi Aaron, Below is commit script which is building dynamic prefix list (containing local IPv4 addresses) you could reference in FTF: krasi# show system scripts commit allow-transients; file ifl-addr-v4.slax; krasi# run file show /var/db/scripts/commit/ifl-addr-v4.slax version 1.0; ns junos

Re: [j-nsp] Why doesn't memory utilization in "show chassis routing-engine" count in "Inactive" and "Buffers" memory?

Hi, It used to be calculated like (Total - Free - Inactive - Cached)/Total, but changed somewhere in 7.x. >From the book: "Dirty pages need to be paged out, but flushing a page is extremely expensive compared to freeing a clean page. Thus, dirty pages are given extra time on the inactive queue

Re: [j-nsp] RFC3107 to LDP stitching

Hi Adam, And cmd: “set protocols bgp group nni-opt-c family inet labeled-unicast per-prefix-label” -only creates label mapping for BGP-LU label that remote AS ASBR advertised for remote AS PE loopback with LDP label that local AS ASBR allocated for this prefix. I don't think

Re: [j-nsp] RFC3107 to LDP stitching

: Krasimir Avramski [mailto:kr...@smartcom.bg] Sent: 01 April 2015 10:42 To: Adam Vitkovsky Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] RFC3107 to LDP stitching Hi Adam, Yes, bgp-igp-both-ribs is needed for transport LSP stitching on ASBRs. BGP-LU works as follow: If the route

Re: [j-nsp] RFC3107 to LDP stitching

Hi Adam, Yes, bgp-igp-both-ribs is needed for transport LSP stitching on ASBRs. BGP-LU works as follow: If the route has label then select new label and perform swap. If there is no label then select new label and perform pop - note for the direct routes(such as loopback) implicit label 3 is

Re: [j-nsp] NG-MVPN RPT-SPT mode no receiver CE limitation?

We used SPT-only mode and didn't see any difference in channel changes, because in SPT-only mode, the (S,G) state is already present on the Receiver PE router, so an IGMP Join request does not have to travel the RPT tree like if you RPT-SPT mode. Well with the caveat that in RPT-SPT after

Re: [j-nsp] NG-MVPN RPT-SPT mode no receiver CE limitation?

at all. I guess I'll wait for JTAC to get back to me. Thanks, Vladi On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Krasimir Avramski kr...@smartcom.bgwrote: I have had customer using exactly the same setup (in production) without any problems on receiver PE (static igmp local receivers for faster channel

Re: [j-nsp] NG-MVPN RPT-SPT mode no receiver CE limitation?

I have had customer using exactly the same setup (in production) without any problems on receiver PE (static igmp local receivers for faster channel zapping). Now I can't remember if igmp was effectively filtered on downstream access equipment. The problem with local receivers was only on Source

Re: [j-nsp] VRRP aware IGMP/PIM

Hello, Why you use the hello-interval of 0 on PE1 PIM configuration? While I'm not 100% sure this probably prevents sending hello messages on segment so potentially PIM DR election is broken - there is possibility both PE routers to believe they are DRs for the segment.(PE1 seeing P2'S hellos

Re: [j-nsp] OSPF external routes in database but not in routing table

domain vpn tag(external route tag) is already set to 0 - the problem is that D/N bit is set as per RFC4576 (0x82 from your output lsa options). Krasi On 29 April 2014 11:05, Mohammad Salbad masal...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you all experts for your support and help Based on what I

Re: [j-nsp] maximum BGP multipath ECMP supported on M7i or M10i routers?

Hi, Two types of balancing supported: per prefix (bgp multipath) and per flow (ECMP next-hop including bgp multipath) Up to 64 ECMP next-hops on MX(DPC, MPC), M120, M10i(Enhanced CFEB), M320( FPC dependent), T(FPC dependent) for RSVP, LDP, ISIS(ipv4/6), OSPF(ipv4/6), IBGP(ipv4/6), EBGP(ipv4/6).

Re: [j-nsp] Community matching policy

A match 100:100 B match 101:101 Your TEST1 term match on !A OR !B = !(A AND B), so it effectively rejects every route that has NO communities 100:100 AND 101:101 (at the same time) Your target is to accept A OR B, so you can first match and accept on these communities (TEST1 OR TEST2 defined

Re: [j-nsp] Community matching policy

With the requirement to use only invert-match community definitions let say: TEST1 = everything except 100:100 TEST2 = everything except 101:101 we have !TEST1 OR !TEST2 ( these are target routes you want to accept) = !(!!TEST1 !!TEST2) = !(TEST1 TEST2) So define policies: policy-statement

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Route table Size

/junos-software-jtree-memory-repartitioning.html) for ichip I am calculating the worst case scenario with unique inner vpn label usage with composite nexthops. Best Regards, Krasi On 24 September 2013 09:40, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: On (2013-09-24 08:49 +0300), Krasimir Avramski wrote

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Route table Size

with the MX80 is not the FIB size but the slow RE The time it take to receive full routing table is long and to put it into the FIB is even worst Nitzan On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Krasimir Avramski kr...@smartcom.bgwrote: Agree.. other elements like counters, filters, descriptors etc

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Route table Size

Ichip(DPC) has 16-32M RLDRAM and holds 1M routes in FIB, so 256M on trio is huge increment - it is in realm of ~5M routes(since they use dynamic memory allocation to fill up with routes only) and more than 1M labeled prefix routes. Best Regards, Krasi On 23 September 2013 23:51, Saku Ytti

Re: [j-nsp] IGMP problem

Hello, Actually this config generates PIM (*,G) joins upstream to RP. I'm not aware of static igmp joins(generated) or igmp proxies support in junos (excluding junosE) - though there is a feature that translates PIM to

Re: [j-nsp] VPLS Multihoming on Junos - FEC confusion

PM To: Krasimir Avramski Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] VPLS Multihoming on Junos - FEC confusion That's my thought too. However even the 12.3 VPLS configuration guide states FEC128 multihoming. But again showing with BGP Thanks Darren http://www.mellowd.co.uk

Re: [j-nsp] VPLS Multihoming on Junos - FEC confusion

Hello, IMHO there is mess with docs/terms. FEC 128 multihoming as described has nothing to do with ldp. It's bgp signaling and autodiscovery. Krasi On 8 September 2013 22:37, Darren O'Connor darre...@outlook.com wrote: Hi list. I'm going over the VPLS multihoming options on Juniper's

Re: [j-nsp] L2VPN Termination

Hi, On the core instance: set routing-instances xyz_IP_Transit protocols vpls connectivity-type irb Krasi On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org wrote: Thanks folksŠ I have an issue with implementing this and was hoping for a sanity check. ;) On the core

Re: [j-nsp] Internet access from VRF issue

Hi, Make R4 RR for R1 (family inet unicast) and it should work. You will have further intricacy on R3 accepting this route because R4 vpn-inet family will not reset next-hop self automatically. In order to fix this you should apply nhs for this route through explicit vrf-export policy. The

Re: [j-nsp] Reg: 6VPE - Inter-AS

Set ipv4-compatible ipv6 address show interfaces ge-1/0/1 flexible-vlan-tagging; speed 1g; encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services; unit 10 { vlan-id 10; family inet { address 10.10.115.1/30; family inet6 { address :::10.10.115.1/126; } } family mpls; } Best

Re: [j-nsp] Reg: 6VPE - Inter-AS

Hi, set protocols bgp group MPEBGP keep all By the way you don't need ldp on asbr peer interface. On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:19 PM, viks ... vikram4ual...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Krasi, I tired that but it was not working... On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Krasimir Avramski kr

Re: [j-nsp] Routing loop with OSPFv3 NSSA and external routes

Hi, Section 4.8.5 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5340#section-4.8.5. (Calculating AS External and NSSA Routes from OSPFv3) reference section 2.5 from NSSA http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3101#section-2.5 with the assumption RFC1583Compatibility is disabled. Seems like bug for me. Best Regards,

Re: [j-nsp] Junos labeled-unicast announces unusable routes, certainly this is a bug

You CAN configure both AFI=1 SAFI=1 and AFI=1 SAFI=4 on the same BGP session by specifying inet.3 for labeled-unicast routes: family inet { unicast; labeled-unicast { rib { inet.3; } } } And redistributing LDP/RSVP routes from

Re: [j-nsp] Multicast senders/receivers on the same PE (different VRF) with NG MVPN

by the same Trio chip = different vt interface! Thanks, Vladi On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Krasimir Avramski kr...@smartcom.bgwrote: Hi, NG-MVPN extranets are supported since junos 9.5: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.4/topics/topic-map/mcast-mbgp-extranets.html#jd0e120 As I

Re: [j-nsp] Multicast senders/receivers on the same PE (different VRF) with NG MVPN

). Thanks, Vladi On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Krasimir Avramski kr...@smartcom.bgwrote: Hi, vt when used with multicast keyword(in configuration upon binding VT ifl to VRF) is only used for multicast traffic replication(loopback) to receivers living in different MVPN instances. The unicast

Re: [j-nsp] VPLS issues

Hi strict is only useful in case you want to cease vpls service when all lsps matching .*-SILVER.* are down. Default behavior (without strict keyword) with empty(or down) install-nexthop match is to ignore term. Since the aim is to route over single lsp why regex-lsp is used? Why not

Re: [j-nsp] Multicast senders/receivers on the same PE (different VRF) with NG MVPN

Hi, NG-MVPN extranets are supported since junos 9.5: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.4/topics/topic-map/mcast-mbgp-extranets.html#jd0e120 As I remember in some corner cases(only two extranet VRFs on the same router - if my memory serves me right) there is NO need for tunnel hw

Re: [j-nsp] Fw: L2 Circuits accross domains

Hi, Can you share the output of: show route table inet.3 5.1.1.2(ASN1234) show route table inet.3 5.1.1.1 (ASN 4321) show ldp database l2circuit -- on both PEs Alex, imho redistributing ldp through egress-policy wouldn't stitch mpls transport (assume LDP) b/w remote

Re: [j-nsp] WAN input prioritization on MX

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Gustavo Santos gustkil...@gmail.comwrote: For instance: If the current wan ingress traffic total is 450mbits and high priority traffic is 100mbits, and low priority is 350mbits = no packet discard, but if traffic towards high priority subnet is 300mbits and

Re: [j-nsp] JUNIPER POLICER and CoS Shaping Rate

Hi, MPC/MIC interfaces take all Layer 1 and Layer 2 overhead bytes into account when shaping. egress-shaping-overhead configuartion is an option - you can add/subtract from [-63, +128] bytes.

Re: [j-nsp] Multicast IPv6 and M-VPNv6

Hi, ng-mvpn for v6 multicast is supported from 10.0 The same concept as v4 mvpn with the following technicalities: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.0/information-products/topic-collections/release-notes/10/topic-39000.html#jd0e3530 Regards, Krasi, JNCIE-M #1051 On Wed, Mar 14,

Re: [j-nsp] QOS (Network Control traffic Queue)

And most flexible way since 10.0 - applying output filter to loopback interface: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.0/information-products/topic-collections/config-guide-cos/cos-assigning-fc-dscp-to-re-pkts.html#id-fine-grain-RE-9740 Note that filter is applied after traffic was

Re: [j-nsp] Dual Stack Aggregate Policing via Firewall Filter

commit stating that it’s the wrong platform for using the logical-interface-policer statement in that manner. ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* Krasimir Avramski [mailto:kr...@smartcom.bg] *Sent:* Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:16 AM *To:* Devin Kennedy *Cc:* juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] Dual Stack Aggregate Policing via Firewall Filter

Hi, It is possible to reference logical-interface-policer in interface-specific filters for inet and inet6 families. Krasi On 1 Mar 2012 16:11, Devin Kennedy devinkennedy...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello: We are currently testing dual stack CoS on the Juniper platform and we're not seeing any

Re: [j-nsp] l2vpn problem

encapsulation flexible-ethernet services under IFD and encapsulation vlan-ccc under IFL(logical unit)? Krasimir Avramski JNCIE #1051 On 18 Oct 2011 22:32, Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org wrote: We are starting to work on migrating many layer2 LAN connections over to our MPLS environment

Re: [j-nsp] Policy-options: Logical AND for community values

import !(condition1 condition2) where condition1 policy ACCEPT first comunity and condition2 policy ACCEPT invert-match comunity. Krasi On 20 Sep 2011 17:35, Rafael Rodriguez packetjoc...@gmail.com wrote: Hello list, I've run into a snag and need some advice. *Goal:* Within a policy,

Re: [j-nsp] Next Gen MVPN flooding assistance

Hi, It is normal behavior with inclusive P-tunnels (in your case P2MP lsps).It is default without explicit selective configuration. Regards, Krasi On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Chris Evans chrisccnpsp...@gmail.comwrote: I took a few minutes to setup NG-MVPN using RSVP-TE P2MP LSP in my

Re: [j-nsp] Next Gen MVPN flooding assistance

-template; On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Krasimir Avramski kr...@smartcom.bgwrote: Hi, It is normal behavior with inclusive P-tunnels (in your case P2MP lsps).It is default without explicit selective configuration. Regards, Krasi On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Chris Evans chrisccnpsp

Re: [j-nsp] Difference between (AS-Path, as-override, Loops) juniper Cisco !!!

You can disable this sanity check by reverting to an really old behavior with: advertise-peer-as in bgp. Without as-override enabled this will delegate as-loop responsibility to CPE. Regards, Krasi On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:10 PM, medrees medr...@isu.net.sa wrote: Hi Experts Firstly, I

Re: [j-nsp] several vlans under one vpls routing instance

Missing no-tunnel-services or vt interface . Krasi On 3 May 2011 19:24, meryem Z merye...@hotmail.com wrote: ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] vpls and virtual switches (vlan-id none) not supported

If vlan tags are to be removed in VPLS PW how to demultiplex b/w bridge domains in a virtual switch ? Krasi On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, jbues...@jb-internetworking.com wrote: Hi there, I have the following issue: switch1--(ciscoPE)-(MX80)switch2

Re: [j-nsp] Use of lt-Interfaces on Juniper MX for binding multiple VPLS Instances to several CCC (unidirectional Ethernet P2P) Servcies RxTx-loop to same interface

Hi, Can you share more details of application requiring such transitions? Why not just use p2mp lsps inside vlps for flooded traffic:

Re: [j-nsp] Filtering the export of VRF routes with iBGP export filters....

provided by vpn-apply-export is enabled when a router is configured as a route-reflector, which mine are already.  Will give it a whirl anyways, though. David On 31 August 2010 04:25, Krasimir Avramski kr...@smartcom.bg wrote: You probably missing vpn-apply-export stanza in your bgp cluster

Re: [j-nsp] Stealing from MX firewall jtree space

... Regards, Krasi -Original Message- From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net] Sent: 18.12.2009 9:21 AM To: Krasimir Avramski Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Stealing from MX firewall jtree space On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:37:06PM +0200, Krasimir

Re: [j-nsp] Stealing from MX firewall jtree space

Hello, route-memory-enhanced introduced in 9.6 What about terminating bgp neighbor in inet.0 with bgp operating over a rib-group under family inet: protocols bgp group xy { neighbor x.x.x.x { import xy; family inet { unicast { rib-group xy;

Re: [j-nsp] flow-route questions.

;-) or external route server to translate. Keep in mind there is no compatibility of flowspecs, extended dhcp subscriber and input FTF in the same route table. HTH, Krasimir Avramski ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] Layer 3 VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF) Tables Issue

Hi, It seems the router is RR or ebgp for family inet-vpn. In this case routes in vrf tables are exported to global bgp.l3vpn.0 with respective vrf-export policies. I'm pretty sure the problematic routes are being advertised to remote PEs but with missing communities. This can be checked: show

Re: [j-nsp] firewall policer

Hi, Apply the same filter to both IFLs. Filter-specific policer shares bandwidth if you use it multiple times in the same filter (for example a policer referenced under multiple filter terms) If you use a filter applied to multiple IFLs and filter is NOT explicitly defined as

Re: [j-nsp] flow-routes then routing-instance action

Hi Felix, I loaded your setup and it works for me. First if you expect icmp (destination unreachable) replies you should change the the 10.10.5.7/32 host route to reject - otherwise although redirected to RI testFlow they are silently discarded. How you decided the traffic is not passing VRF?

Re: [j-nsp] VPLS LM Status?

forward flooded and learned traffic - working as designed. Regards, Krasi _ From: Marlon Duksa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 8:14 AM To: Krasimir Avramski Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] VPLS LM Status? It works. Thanks. Can you

Re: [j-nsp] Next Gen MVPN and signalling protocol

Hello, You can change preference of rsvp signaled lsps globally or per LSP : set protocols mpls preference 10 or only for particular lsp: set protocols mpls label-switched-path xxx preference 10 Krasi -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:juniper-nsp- [EMAIL

Re: [j-nsp] VPN ID for BGP VPLS

Yes, The VE ID is site-identifier, protocols { vpls { vpls-id id-name; # LDP signaling only. neighbor neighbor-id; # LDP signaling only. site-range 10; #BGP signaling only. mac-table-size 1024; site greenPE1 { #BGP signaling only.