* dha...@juniper.net (Doug Hanks) [Thu 06 Sep 2012, 18:58 CEST]:
Using fxp0 for inline-jflow has been disabled since 10.2; you need
to use a revenue port as the egress.
Or what engineers call a non-management port
-- Niels.
--
___
juniper-n
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hetherington) [Sat 05 Jul 2008, 20:42 CEST]:
We have a J2320-JH, it has a Link to AS1200 over a 2meg serial x.21
connection and then a 100meg connection to AS1299 over ethernet. I
have bgp from our as accepting ANY from them and announcing a single
/23 network to them.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bit Gossip) [Fri 13 Jun 2008, 14:13 CEST]:
we are experiencing a constant presence of "L3 incomplete" on a 1 Gige
PIC. This is ~1 every 5 mins. Any idea what can be the reason?
You didn't search the archives, did you?
The Junos doc says "This counter increments when the i
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chuck Anderson) [Thu 22 May 2008, 00:31 CEST]:
>I'll take a new standard if it means $5k for an Ethernet port vs.
>$50k for POS.
Gigabit Ethernet is cheap because of volume, volume, volume.
What do you think will happen when the market is splintered like that?
Do you seriou
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard A Steenbergen) [Wed 21 May 2008, 22:54 CEST]:
>Of course it would be remarkably easy for Ethernet to be extended to
>support higher data speeds without any real change in the structure or
>encoding, just like FC has managed to go from 1G to 2G to 4G with the same
>ba
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (cscosunny) [Tue 15 Apr 2008, 15:29 CEST]:
>I have a routing question
>
>I have a firewall 5gt Ethernet1 is 192.168.30.1/16 and mail server is
>192.168.0.240/16
>
>5gt pings mail server and vice versa in my pc I have 192.168.30.10/16
>and I have connectivity to the mail server
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Adams) [Fri 21 Mar 2008, 19:15 CET]:
[..]
>These are 10 and 100 meg metroE connections; I don't know what these
>companies do for gigE.
I would hope they follow the IEEE standard and implement all mandatory
parts of it - which includes autonegotiation.
-- Nie
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DATACOM - Est?v?o) [Wed 09 Jan 2008, 15:18 CET]:
>Thanks. I did an Aggregated Ethernet configuration and looked the MIB,
>but the objects didn't show any relevant info. Maybe I'm missing some
>configuration (it's a M7i) or misunderstanding the MIB:
[..]
Looks like you're mis
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pekka Savola) [Mon 20 Aug 2007, 11:29 CEST]:
>On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Barry O'Connell wrote:
>> We are seeing a large volume of the follow message
>> "PFE_NH_RESOLVE_THROTTLED: Next-hop resolution requests from interface
>> 67 throttled" in the router logs.
>>
>> I am struggling
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kanagaraj Krishna) [Thu 28 Jun 2007, 13:22 CEST]:
> Aren't the incoming filters used to filter access to certain
> services/port into the router? I'm curious on how an external response
> (from a telnet request) could be affected unless it tries to respond to
> port 80 of th
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nicolaj Kamensek) [Sat 09 Jun 2007, 20:16 CEST]:
>today I found the following messages in my /var/log/messages:
>
>Jun 9 19:59:53 re0 /kernel: Nexthop index allocation failed: regular
>index space exhausted
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> show arp no-resolve | count
>Count: 7205 lines
>* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kanagaraj Krishna) [Fri 16 Mar 2007, 20:51 CET]:
>>I've heard that although the load balance option is known as
>>"per-packet" but it behaves more like "per flow". Meaning packets
>>would not be breaked up and merged on the other end. Am i right?
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri 16
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (German Martinez) [Thu 01 Feb 2007, 15:42 CET]:
>http://www.juniper.net/company/newsletter/jnews_article_070101.html
>
>What will be the diffence of running this or running 4 links in
>paralel?
Three fibers, looks like. And some bad-ass handwaving about alien waveforms.
13 matches
Mail list logo
