Re: [j-nsp] Prefix independent convergence and FIB backup path

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Olivier Benghozi wrote: > Here (VPNv4/v6, BGP PIC Core + PIC Edge, no addpath as not supported in vpn > AFI) we can see that, when possible: > active eBGP path is backuped via iBGP path > active iBGP path is backuped via another iBGP path > > We don't see: > active

Re: [j-nsp] Prefix independent convergence and FIB backup path

inal Message- >> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf >> Of Mark Smith >> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 6:02 AM >> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> Subject: [j-nsp] Prefix independent convergence and FIB backup path >>

[j-nsp] Prefix independent convergence and FIB backup path

Hi list, Test topology below. 2x MX80 with dual ip transit (full table ~600k prefixes). TRA1 preferred over TRA2 (Localpref 200 set by PE1 import policy). Plain unlabeled inet.0, no mpls in use. In lab topology both transits belong to same AS65502. What I'm trying to accomplish is somewhat faster

[j-nsp] Where and how to inject the default route in DFZ

Hi list This is best explained by an example. Router R1 has a full bgp table (~550k prefixes). R1 needs to announce a default route using OSPF and BGP. The worst issue is when R1 boots up. Assume there is a static 0/0 route to discard. R1 brings up OSPF adjacencies and starts announcing 0/0. Blac

Re: [j-nsp] if_pfe_msg_handler: pfe_peer_msg_handler error: 1

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Mark Smith wrote: > Our lab M7i router has started logging following error quite precisely > at 5 minute intervals. > > Oct 16 10:12:22.413 m7-lab /kernel: %KERN-7: if_pfe_msg_handler: > pfe_peer_msg_handler error: 1 Replying to myself. Th

[j-nsp] if_pfe_msg_handler: pfe_peer_msg_handler error: 1

Hi list Our lab M7i router has started logging following error quite precisely at 5 minute intervals. Oct 16 10:12:22.413 m7-lab /kernel: %KERN-7: if_pfe_msg_handler: pfe_peer_msg_handler error: 1 This started after inserting some new PICs. I have not noticed any other symptoms. Google and juni

[j-nsp] Internet routes in MPLS network, global table or own VRF?

Hi How should the global Internet routes be organized in IP/MPLS network? Should they be put into global (inet.0) routing table or in their own VRF (e.g. internet.inet.0)? Assume same P/PE routers are used to route internet and VRFs. What are the pros and cons of these approaches? Pointers to go

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS fast convergence without link information

, something like fping -l -p 10 -i 10 -t 10 to get the low-precision measurement of outage in 10 milliseconds. Does this make sense to you? On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Phil Mayers wrote: > On 12/29/2011 06:48 PM, Mark Smith wrote: > >> I would not expect the L2 service provider t

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS fast convergence without link information

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Phil Bedard wrote: > BFD on the IGP session would be the best option.  We currently run ours at > 300x3 on Juniper boxes and lower on some other platforms with better hardware > processing of BFD packets.   If you are using aggregates something like > 802.3ah ma

[j-nsp] MPLS fast convergence without link information

Hi list Let's examine an MPLS network where the connections between MPLS routers (P and PE) involve L2 devices. The connections might be leased L2 pseudowires or something similar. As a consequence the interface link state information cannot be used by routers to determine the state of the connect