Just serious. If you have strict budget problem, why not use DELL Force10
S4810?
For L3 line rate inter vlan routing, it works pretty well. Use it as TOR
seems a good and inexpensive solution, plus it has 4x40GE QSFP+ port can be
used as uplink.
On Mar 16, 2014 9:43 AM, "Paul S." wrote:
> Budget
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Tom Storey wrote:
>
>> FWIW the situation I am picturing would not require NAT or IPSEC or
>> other services like that, just packet shifting with ACLs, some routing
>> protocols (IS-IS/BGP), and something
Hi Thong,
We experienced same difficulty on 3rd party 1000base-T SFP.
We are preparing few MX5 (JUNOS 11.4R7.5) new deployment, and figured
out all of our 3rd party 1000base-T SFP became UP even there is no
cable plugged in. Those 3rd party 1000base-T SFP came from different
vendors; they are wor
Ah~ M20 does not support 10GE interface, also M20 is already EOL.
MX could be good choice, see
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000378-en.pdf
for MX80 cards, and
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/
for all MX series.
--
Michel~
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013
Possibly Juniper is positioning ACX for that?
But ACX has far lower port density and those
1U ACX has only DC power-supplier.
--
Michel~
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Mark Tees wrote:
> Can't help but wonder what they were thinking with that design.
>
> How many people out there want this fu
Hi There~
One of my customers has some Cisco Nexus 7K but budget wise prevents
him from buying N7K in new locations. His environment is pretty simple
and straight forward. Lots of 10GE ports (around 2200 ports) divide
into around 30+ VLANs. Then uplink to two MX routers (the border) and
go to Inte
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:31 PM, 叶雨飞 wrote:
> J-series is still using P4 class cpu ,ddr2 memory, where as it is
> really cheap to upgrade them for now (I bought ~50$ from ebay , 3G
> cpu, 2.5G ram and it handles several copies of full bgp feed just
> fine) , it is clear that is not going to last
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:13 PM, 叶雨飞 wrote:
> downgrade to 9.3R4.4 then
Unfortunately 9.3 is already EOLed (
http://www.juniper.net/support/eol/junos.html )
Tuning J/SRX into packet-mode will lost several valuable functions
such as IPsec, Jflow... those are very important for small business.
Sel
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:09 AM, 叶雨飞 wrote:
> 11.4 actually, sorry!
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:56 PM, 叶雨飞 wrote:
>> Thx, i am mostly disappointed in their implementation of nat/ipsec
>> require flow processing, it's totally unnecessary! i hate session
>> tables too!
>>
>> Although i heard
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:52 PM, 叶雨飞 wrote:
> Hi,
> I currently have 2 100mbps uplink (about 50% bandwidth utilization,
> 10kpps each), I am hoping to get a srx100 as the router, run it in
> packet mode for most traffic except some low traffic nat/ipsec
> management tunnels.
> Is that going to be
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Doug Hanks wrote:
> Thanks to couple of people pinged me off-list; I accidentally switched
> around the MX80. The MICs are installed where the switch fabric would
> have been and the 4x10G are where the MICs would have been.
>
> You essentially get 4x10GE ports for
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Michel de Nostredame
wrote:
> Good day,
>
> I am recently working on an replacement of aged M10i; we are using
> M10i to terminate multiple 100mbps/1gbps Metro-Ethernet from branch
> buildings (FEs are aggregated on EX4200 and Layer2 uplink to M10i
Good day,
I am recently working on an replacement of aged M10i; we are using
M10i to terminate multiple 100mbps/1gbps Metro-Ethernet from branch
buildings (FEs are aggregated on EX4200 and Layer2 uplink to M10i by
GE), hence MX80 become reasonable replacement as it has higher port
density, cheaper
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Pierre-Yves Maunier wrote:
> 2012/1/23 pkc mls
> You can activate packet based routing on recent Junos SRX/J-Series devices :
> http://juniper.cluepon.net/Enabling_packet_based_forwarding
but some functions will stop working, such as cflow or IPsec tunnels.
--
M
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 6:18 AM, R. Benjamin Kessler
wrote:
> Hello All -
>
> We have a client with a lot of J-Series routers running 9.3 code or earlier.
> We really like the features and functionality of JUNOS as a router and are
> more than a little annoyed that Juniper seems to be forcing us
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Martin T wrote:
> What is the difference between "request system halt" and "request
> system power-off" under JUNOS? Is there a possibility to completely
> turn off the router remotely(for example in case of Cisco it's
> impossible)?
>
> regards,
> martin
>From my
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> CCC doesn't work on EX (it should really throw an error or something),
> you've gotta use vlans and family ethernet-switching on the ports.
Oh! Thanks to Richard & Peter,
I was about to test CCC on EX4200, but now I can skip this step
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Keegan Holley
wrote:
> One of the things that turned us off to the SRX series was the fact that
> code upgrades have to be done on both firewalls if you run them in HA mode.
> That's kind of a big deal if you want hitless upgrades or there are issues
> with the up
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Dale Shaw wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm curious about what people have found is the best way to manage
> interface configurations on EX-series devices. There are a number of
> ways to apply configuration to interfaces -- direct to each interface,
> using interface-ranges
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Wojciech Owczarek
wrote:
> This is just the way Juniper do things, just that it's not consistent
> across all of their platforms. I've once been told by a Juniper
> engineer that 1514 vs. 1518 MTU value is displayed (on the EX
> platform at least) because the 4 by
Hi,
I was checking my EX4200 trying to resolve a strange connection
problem with my vendor through a Metro Ethernet.
During that time I found another weird situation (it is not related to
the metroEthernet connection).
I setup two topology to test
EX4200.ae0 ===(LACP,trunk)=== ae0.M10
On above
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:31:50AM -0400, Brendan Mannella wrote:
> Personally I recommend 10.1S6 (have a lot of experience
> with it at any rate, 10.1S8 will hopefully fix a lot of my other
> outstanding issues :P).
Hi Richard,
We
But... JUNOS 9.3 has problem on the enhanced-switching mode,
I have following config in chassis section,
fpc 6 {
pic 0 {
ethernet {
pic-mode enhanced-switching;
}
}
}
as soon as I commit, following error bumps up,
Sep 21 23:54:54 chassisd[889]: CHASSISD_
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Chris Evans wrote:
> I asked for this years ago but was blown off. Basically got the 'that is
> the way it is' statement. As stated the current implementation is very
> limiting.
>
> Cisco has had this feature since I can remember on all of their platforms.
As fo
It looks like can only perform the TOS bit to TOS bit translation.
However the most useful function will need to leverage firewall filter to
perform the "TOS bit marking" on the ingress.
It is very difficult to perform all those sophisticated marking on the
egress interface
by only leverage lame r
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Chris Evans wrote:
> I have real concerns with juniper. We are primarily a Cisco shop and are
> using juniper devices here and there. I have to honestly say, anymore
> Cisco
> code is way more stable than Junos. I'm always finding major bugs in junos,
> yet any C
Hi ibariouen,
I think you need to use policy based NAT, so you can control which IP needs
to be NATed, and which IP doesn't.
regards,
--
Michel~
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:41 AM, ibariouen khalid wrote:
> Dear community
>
> i have the following design issue and i need your feed-back on it :
>
Hi,
Try this config. I am not sure if it could resolve your problem, but you can
give it a try.
==
interfaces {
ge-0/0/1 {
description "## 100m ##";
unit 0 {
bandwidth 100m;
family inet {
address xx.xx.xx.xx/30;
Hi Truman,
As you recommended on the packet mode config, there do have the needs to get
rid of flow mode on J's.
When turn into packet mode on current JUNOS, some feature will become
useless such as Jflow and IPsec VPN. But they are both important in terms of
accounting (Jflow) and establish cro
Hi Tony,
I just put the two parameters,
set flow reverse-route clear-text prefer
set flow reverse-route tunnel prefer
into those 3 SSG boxes, but no luck there. I am re-read all documents and
wish I can find something.
Regards,
--
Michel~
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Tony Frank wrote:
t; Beyond that, write your policy bi-directionally ensuring any side can
create
> the session and that should fit your needs. Even if the session times out
> with syn-checking disabled and it's permitted by policy it will be
instantly
> recreated with the next packet.
>
> Hope t
Hi Alexev,
Current version for EX4200 is 10.1R1.8, but per Juniper that 10.0S1.1
is recommended.
see
https://www.juniper.net/customers/csc/software/junos_software_versions.jsp
for more details.
Regards,
--
Michel~
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Alexey Kholmov
wrote:
> Hi juniper-nsp,
>
Hi,
The problem I encountered is that I am doing many route-based tunnels
on many NetScreen boxes, and sometimes there will be asymmetric routes
over tunnels and physical interfaces.
Asymmetric paths in traditional routers / L3-switches will not be a
problem, but in NetScreen that will cause sess
As for EX4200, does anyone able to config firewall filter that matches
"established" flag of TCP?
We are using EX4200 with JUNOS 9.3R2.8, but not able to do this matching.
It is quite a pain for us that we could not compose filter on the way we need.
thanks,
--
Michel~
___
Hi,
In the ES version, there is a 1M-session potential bomb for J6530,
according to the spec sheet.
Start from 9.4, there is no non-ES version JUNOS for J-series box. I
am wondering if the command provided in KB can completely turns the ES
version JUNOS into non-ES version. Which means make the J
You may use following config to enable 4 queues or 8 queues on an interface
[edit chassis fpc slot-number pic pic-number]
max-queues-per-interface (4 | 8);
ref:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos93/swconfig-cos/enabling-eight-queues-on-interfaces.html
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at
36 matches
Mail list logo
