Hi
Le lun. 8 juil. 2024 à 22:48, Wojciech Janiszewski via juniper-nsp
a écrit :
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> Seems that it's supported from 23.4
>
> https://apps.juniper.net/feature-explorer/feature-info.html?fKey=11993&fn=Logging%20support%20for%20routing%20engine%20shell%20and%20line%20card%20shell
Just t
Le dim. 18 sept. 2022 à 07:08, Chuck Anderson via juniper-nsp
a écrit :
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 06:21:51PM -0400, Jared Mauch via juniper-nsp wrote:
> > Anyone else see their RPD start to core today? Seeing something weird,
> > unclear if it’s local to my network or otherwise but two devices
Le lun. 4 juil. 2022 à 16:43, Saku Ytti a écrit :
>
> I don't believe what you're doing is tacacs command authorization, that is
> junos is not asking the tacacs server if or not it can execute the command,
> something IOS and SROS can do, but which makes things like loading config
> very bruta
Le lun. 4 juil. 2022 à 16:18, Saku Ytti a écrit :
>
> I don't believe Junos has tacacs command authorization.
it has. This sorta works, I've been able to allow some commands like
'clear network-access aaa subscriber username.*' and 'monitor
traffic'. The issue I have is with 'clear pppoe sessions
Hi
i've been trying to authorize 'clear pppoe session pp0.*' for some of
our users. They already have some allowed commands such as 'monitor
traffic' and 'clear network-access aaa subscriber username' that
works, but 'clear pppoe' is refused.
foo@bar> clear ppp?
No valid completions
foo@bar> cle
Le mer. 24 juin 2020 à 16:50, Pierre Emeriaud a écrit :
>
> Howdy
>
> I'm trying to shut down the laser from my optics from the junos cli in
> order to ease troubleshooting. On MXes 240/480/960, mostly 17.4R2.
> - would you consider the 'disable' not working as
Le mer. 24 juin 2020 à 21:29, Olivier Benghozi
a écrit :
>
> This being said, we didn't experience this neither with Skylane nor
> Cubeoptics transceivers (currently on MPC7-MRATE / 18.4R[2-3]-[S*]). It «just
> works» as we expect (laser is switched off when the channel is disabled in
> the con
Le mer. 24 juin 2020 à 18:59, Jared Mauch a écrit :
> >
> > Many of the optics don’t have a way to disable the laser except via custom
> > commands over the i2c. Last I read the SFF MSA there wasn’t a good way to
> > do this, and it wasn’t required.
>
> Correction (somewhat)
>
> It’s not requir
Howdy
I'm trying to shut down the laser from my optics from the junos cli in
order to ease troubleshooting. On MXes 240/480/960, mostly 17.4R2.
'set interface ge- disable' works *sometimes* on mpc2e with an
sfp, or on mpc2 with xfp, but fails (laser still emits) on some other
mpc2 with xfp too, a
Le ven. 8 mars 2019 à 10:26, Robert Hass a écrit :
>
> Hi
> Can I do direct upgrade of JunOS 13.2S to 17.4S ?
> Platform is MX80
> Or should I go step by step: i.e:
> 13.2 -> 14.1
> 14.1 -> 15.1
> 15.1 -> 16.1
> 16.1 -> 17.1
> 17.1 -> 17.4
As others said, direct upgrade is somewhat unsupported an
Le ven. 28 sept. 2018 à 12:49, Saku Ytti a écrit :
>
> Hey James,
>
> > Have anyone used this feature, did it actually help you pin-point the
> > source of an IGP issue?
>
> I doubt many people have ever encountered the problem.
>
> The problem is rogue or misconfigured ISIS speaker with duplicate
Le jeu. 27 sept. 2018 à 19:23, Netravnen a écrit :
>
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 13:43, Drew Weaver wrote:
> > I added 0.pool.ntp.org, 1.pool.ntp.org, 2.pool.ntp.org, 3.pool.ntp.org to
> > system ntp on an MX80 running JunOS 15.
>
> Maybe look into a way to dynamically update the ntp servers list?
> is it possible to mark a VPLS site interface unit as down when OAM CFM
> signals a fault over that unit?
It's possible. Try something like this:
> root@lab-mx80-2# show protocols oam ethernet connectivity-fault-management
> action-profile vlan-down
event {
adjacency-loss;
}
> action {
>
2018-03-29 10:20 GMT+02:00 Pierre Emeriaud :
> 2018-03-28 17:02 GMT+02:00 James Bensley :
>>
>> Do you have any other Junos versions that exhibit the same behavior?
>> Specifically do you see this on any newer Junos versions you maybe
>> running?
>
> I do have o
2018-03-28 17:02 GMT+02:00 James Bensley :
>
> Do you have any other Junos versions that exhibit the same behavior?
> Specifically do you see this on any newer Junos versions you maybe
> running?
I do have other option B gateways on MX with more recent releases,
however none of the routing-instanc
>> Could you try 'maximum-paths' instead? Just as additional datapoint.
Unfortunately, after enabling the maximum-paths 2000 and disabling /
re-enabling the RI, it made no difference:
Mar 28 15:34:38 router rpd[1598]: RPD_RT_PATH_LIMIT_REACHED: Number
of paths (3580) in table CUST-VRF-FOO.inet.0
2018-03-28 13:47 GMT+02:00 Saku Ytti :
> Hey,
>
>> This is on M120 running 12.3R6-S3 (yes I know, ancient. No, can't upgrade).
>
> Then I recommend 'set system no-bugs'.
Error. Command not found. Please insert coin to conti^wupgrade.
:)
>> Anyone aware of a PR on this? Is this a known limitation?
Gents,
I just noticed an issue on a couple of option B gateways in our
network. The max-prefix within routing-instances is not enforced. It's
although taken into account.
This is on M120 running 12.3R6-S3 (yes I know, ancient. No, can't upgrade).
me@router> show configuration routing-instances C
2018-03-16 3:06 GMT+01:00 Roland Dobbins :
>
> On 16 Mar 2018, at 8:59, Chris Kawchuk wrote:
>
>> Just a heads up; I'm probably not the first person to see this--
>
>
> This is rpcbind/portmapper, FYI, which is often abused for
> reflection/amplification attacks.
>
> I'm assuming vMX is a virtual M
2018-03-09 15:48 GMT+01:00 :
>
> But I was actually referring to the very appealing idea you proposed in b) to
> not to even advertise the range -so the DDoS traffic would not even end up at
> your doorstep as simply the Internet would not have route for any of your p2p
> links.
this is really
> we've had very bad experience with Junos 15.1 on our switches (EX4550,
> EX4300, EX4200).
> Now we're getting new MX960s with 2xRE-S-X6-64G and unfortunately the minimum
> required Junos version for this RE is 15.1. Can anyone share their experience
> with Junos 15.1 on MX960? Is it as bad as
21 matches
Mail list logo
