MTU...
On 4/1/11, Keegan Holley wrote:
> We migrated a trunk connection from Cisco 7206 to MX480. All the BGP session
>> was up for a while & goes down. The following is the error message in
>> MX480
>> (10.2R2.11):
>>
>> rpd[1358]: task_connect: task BGP_remoteAS.a.b.c.d.14+179 addr
>> a.b.c.d+1
Yes, that's true. Unnecessary policy is not a good thing. Power of
junos makes me abuse policy sometimes. :)
On 9/10/09, Stefan Fouant wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Yue Min wrote:
>
>> Actually I feel the way ( all community in all routers rather than
>>
Actually I feel the way ( all community in all routers rather than
specific community in specific router ) would save your time not waste
your time.
On 9/10/09, Stefan Fouant wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Stevanus wrote:
>
>> Sorry for a little bit OOT. So suppose I configure bgp co
at we would need to configure it through the
> global router.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Thanks
> Vineet
>
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Yue Min wrote:
>> logical router is a great feature. however, I have some questions
>> about how more efficiently user can acc
mode" if other user is r2 and/or r3, not a
"global" user.
3. r1 should be able to issue command like "ping" "show route" "show
isis database" etc. without speicifying logical router name.
anyone has a good sample to do this? thanks.
Min
_
mode" if other user is r2 and/or r3, not a
"global" user.
3. r1 should be able to issue command like "ping" "show route" "show
isis database" etc. without speicifying logical router name.
anyone has a good sample to do this? thanks.
Min
_
works.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Yue Min wrote:
> hey everyone,
>
> I'm studying junos isis. well, most part is simillar to cisco, but I
> got a problem with default route. here's the senario:
>
> ISP router ---(ebgp with default route )--> edge1 ( L1 ro
isis since it's not in our production. :)
Min
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
se advertise-inactive
) however, the book rely on the default bgp policy to announce bgp
route out and then use a route-filter to suppress specific route and
use advertise-inactive to export inactive bgp route due to protocol
preference. my question: is my solution correct?
thanks for anyone
iBGP route. Am I gonna loss point here if I do this way?
Min
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
ags peer specific community.
with extra requirement for some peers, one or some of these policy [
as65050-filter-in no-comms damping prepend-twice ] will be added to
policy chain.
I'm wondering if this is a good policy formation for JNCIP test?
Min
___
somehow it didn't go through at first try.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Min
Date: Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:26 AM
Subject: confused about "Not Best in its group"
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sometime BGP inactive route shows inactive reason as "Not Best in
Sometime BGP inactive route shows inactive reason as "Not Best in its
group". However, if configured "protocols bgp path-selection
always-compare-med", inactive reason will be more specific, like "IGP
metric", "Interior > Exterior > Exterior via Interior". Really
confused how "always-compare-med" w
o adjacencies can be established on this
subnet."
what does that mean? seems the sample config desn't reflect 49.0003.
am I missing something?
Min
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi everyone,
in Harry's JNCIP book, there're several places where load balancing is
required, such as in ospf and bgp. besides configuring protocols to
have multiple next-hop show up in routing table, do I have to
configure forwarding-table export policy like this to actually install
multiple next
15 matches
Mail list logo
