[j-nsp] MX204 scale/performance

Hi I'm stating network reorganization moving our infrastructure from Cisco machines to bunch of MX204 routers. I have few questions related to MX204 scale and performance: 1) How big ACLs are supported on MX204 ? (number of entries for all ACLs configured). 2) I want to use lt- interfaces to add

Re: [j-nsp] BGP output queue priorities between RIBs/NLRIs

> > Can you do the EVPN routes on a separate session (different loopback on > both ends, dedicated to EVPN-afi-only BGP)? Separate sessions would help if TCP socket would be the real issue, but here clear it is not. > Or separate RRs? > Sure that may help. In fact even separate RPD demon on th

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 upgrade path 18.4R

Hi 14% more memory is used compared to 10.4R. How many full-views you have in RIB ? Rob On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 3:35 PM Gavin Henry wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Have you seen any memory usage improvements yet? We're on v14 and need to > upgrade or get a pair of mx204 for our sec

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 upgrade path 18.4R

d Regards > > > > > > Am So., 14. Juni 2020 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb Robert Hass >: > >> Hi >> I have old MX80 running 10.4R14.2. >> I would like to upgrade it to 18.4R. >> But what upgrade I should use ? >> >> 10.4R -> 15.1R and to 18.4R ?

[j-nsp] MX80 upgrade path 18.4R

Hi I have old MX80 running 10.4R14.2. I would like to upgrade it to 18.4R. But what upgrade I should use ? 10.4R -> 15.1R and to 18.4R ? Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Slow RE path 20 x faster then PFE path

Yes NAT is configured there as I indicated via presence of si- phantom load ... Having NAT there is not my idea though :). But sorry can not share the config. If you could shed some more light on your comment how to properly configure it and what to avoid I think it may be very useful for many fol

Re: [j-nsp] Slow RE path 20 x faster then PFE path

PM Timur Maryin wrote: > > > On 23-Mar-20 14:03, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Would anyone have any idea why IP packets with options are forwarded via > > MX104 20x faster then regular IP packets ? > > > > "fast" PFE path - 24-35 ms &

Re: [j-nsp] Slow RE path 20 x faster then PFE path

PFE bugs ... but I will happily let vendor handle it these days :) On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 6:30 PM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 23/Mar/20 19:25, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > Hi Mark, > > > > Oh yes ... exact same config and same setup and even same hw (mx104) > >

Re: [j-nsp] Slow RE path 20 x faster then PFE path

FE loops', this is single NPU > > fabricless platform, all ports are local. The only way to delay packet > > that long, is to send it to off-chip DRAM (delay buffer). > > > > But please update list once you figure it out. > > Just for giggles, Robert, are you able to

Re: [j-nsp] Slow RE path 20 x faster then PFE path

That is actual topology and during testing no other return path existed. It seems that there are PFE loops which would explain why punted to RE packets are forwarded so fast JTAC is debugging :) Thx, R. On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 4:17 PM Saku Ytti wrote: > Hey, > > > This is very simple setu

Re: [j-nsp] Slow RE path 20 x faster then PFE path

ng from host you think > (tshark might add information). > > a) is 1.4ms possible in terms of speed-of-light? > b) where are 24ms packets sitting, do you also have longer path > available or are you heavily congested causing massive queueing delay? > > > > On Mon, 23 Ma

[j-nsp] Slow RE path 20 x faster then PFE path

Hi, Would anyone have any idea why IP packets with options are forwarded via MX104 20x faster then regular IP packets ? "fast" PFE path - 24-35 ms "slow" RE path - 1-4 ms Example (I used record route to force IP Options punt to slow path): rraszuk@cto-lon2:~$ ping 62.189.71.209 -R -v PING 62.18

Re: [j-nsp] Internet monitoring in case of general issues

all apps are like that and some would like network to be a little bit more smart :) Best, R. On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 12:31 PM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 15/Mar/20 12:56, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > All, > > > > It seems that most answers and in fact the question itself as

Re: [j-nsp] Internet monitoring in case of general issues

All, It seems that most answers and in fact the question itself assumes that all we can do here is to be reactive. In my books that is an indication that we have already failed. I do think that any one who has more then one internet upstream ISPs (full table or even defaults out) can do performa

Re: [j-nsp] Automation - The Skinny (Was: Re: ACX5448 & ACX710)

> And I think almost no one is collecting data in such a manner > that it's actually capitalisable, because we can keep running the > network with how how we did in 90s, IF-MIB and netflow, in separate > systems, with no encrichement at all. Spot on ! Btw Saku - you keep suggesting measuring delt

Re: [j-nsp] Automation - The Skinny (Was: Re: ACX5448 & ACX710)

tarts and rubber hits the road when network eng can not run gdb on a daily basis. Cheers, Robert. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710

CPE with its datasheet not even mentioning IPSec/DTLS hardware support ... LOL what year do we have ? On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:01 PM wrote: > > Giuliano C. Medalha > > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 8:24 PM > > > > Hello > > > > We did some initial lab teste using 5448 for a client and we have

Re: [j-nsp] FlowSpec and RTBH

I see there are two questions here Marcin is asking: > I was wondering is there a way to export family flow routes (from > inetflow.0) to non flowspec BGP speaker? Q1 - Can I advertise Flowspec NLRIs to non Flowspec speakers ? The answer is clearly "No" > For example tag Flowspec route with comm

Re: [j-nsp] Suggestions for Edge/Peering Router..

> > > Ideally I'd like to see equivalent of Cisco's dynamic update peer-groups > in Junos. > > They are dynamic, but once you make export change which affects subset > of members in peer-group, that member gets reset while placed to new > update-group. And that is how dynamic update groups works

Re: [j-nsp] LAG/ECMP hash performance

Hi Eldon, You are very correct. I was very highly surprised to read Saku mentioning use of CRC for hashing but then quick google revealed this link: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/hash-parameters-edit-forwarding-options.html Looks like

Re: [j-nsp] support of GCM-AES-XPN-128 cipher for MACsec

-macsec.html > > > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/understanding_media_access_control_security_qfx_ex.html#id-configuring-media-access-control-security-macsec > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 07:13:04PM +0200, Robert Hass wrote: > > Hi > > I'm lo

[j-nsp] support of GCM-AES-XPN-128 cipher for MACsec

Hi I'm looking for list of Juniper devices supporting GCM-AES-XPN-128 encryption cipher for MACsec. SRX300 doesn't - just GCM-AES-128 What about EX4200, EX4300 or EX3400 ? Coudn't find anything on juniper.net Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-ns

[j-nsp] Old JunOS upgrade path

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 Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/

Re: [j-nsp] ARP resolution algorithm? Storage of MX transit packets?

Ytti wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 10:34, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > > > As mentioned on the other thread decent routers should resolve peer's > IP to mac when creating FIB adj and building rewrite entries. > > > There is no "first packet" noti

Re: [j-nsp] ARP resolution algorithm? Storage of MX transit packets?

transit. Thx On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 09:51 Saku Ytti On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 10:34, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > As mentioned on the other thread decent routers should resolve peer's IP > to mac when creating FIB adj and building rewrite entries. > > There is no "first p

Re: [j-nsp] ARP resolution algorithm? Storage of MX transit packets?

all people took for granted, was conviction that if you > feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never > doubted > it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor." > Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh > Mistress >

Re: [j-nsp] Junos Arp Expiration Timer Behavior & Active Flows

Hi Alex, > as opposed to normal ARP behaviour where ARP is only > resolved where there is a packet going to 203.0.113.1. In correctly constructed ISP grade routers FIB data plane is build regardless of packets going through the router or not. So it is actually control plane driven to build MAC r

Re: [j-nsp] vMX questions - vCPU math

> Thanks My use-case is vPE, HugePages are already enabled. I'm using separate VMs for vCP and vFPC (so no nested). My confusion is related to HT setting, as you wrote to disable it. But vMX Getting Started Guide for KVM says: "CPU pinning with flow caching enabled (performance mode) is differe

[j-nsp] vMX questions - vCPU math

Hi I have few questions regarding vMX deployed on platform: - KVM+Ubuntu as Host/Hypervisor - server with 2 CPUs, 8 core each, HT enabled - DualPort (2x10G) Intel X520 NIC (SR-IOV mode) - DualPort Intel i350 NIC - vMX performance-mode (SR-IOV only) - 64GB RAM (4GB Ubuntu, 8GB vCP, 52GB vFPC) - JunO

[j-nsp] MX Chassis Spare - What is included

If you order a spare chassis, such as: CHAS-BP3-MX960-S What is included? Do you get the rackmount kit and craft interface, or is it literally just a tin can with a backplane installed? ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://

[j-nsp] show ospf lsdb - topology drawing

compatible as is with junos output. Many thx, Robert. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Problem with QinQ MPLS Service + Switch

t; > > > interface xe-0/0/0.300 > > Should be ... > > interface xe-0/0/1.300 > > > > Aaron > > > >> On Oct 6, 2018, at 2:19 AM, Robert Hass wrote: > >> > >> interface xe-0/0/0.300 > > ___

[j-nsp] Problem with QinQ MPLS Service + Switch

Hi I have MPLS network based on MX80 routers: r01, r02, r03 I need to establish MPLS Layer2 service with QinQ from r01:xe-0/0/0 to r03:xe-0/0/1.300 (VLAN 300). Customer on r01 is directly terminated on MX80 And on r03 customer is terminated via Catalyst switch (sw01) on port TenGig1/1/4 (VLAN300)

[j-nsp] QFX5120-48Y feedback

Hi We're looking for ToR/Leaf switches and QFX5120-48Y looks awesome. But on Juniper web-page there is no possibility to download software for that machine - nor release-notes to see what's is not working properly. Do anyone have experience with this switch ? Are they orderable ? What about delive

[j-nsp] vMX vFPC CPU utilization

Hi Is any way to (i.e. CLI command) to display CPU cores utilization for vMX ? I just know 'show pfe statistics traffic bandwidth" - but it's display amount of traffic vs installed vMX license. Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router

> > It's about increasing the odds of it to fall on the right side, > Exactly ! > But comparing say XR and Junos, judging from the rest of the inner workings I could experience empirically, I'd say they are sufficiently different > implementations. > True. In fact even XE & XR BGP code core is

Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router

If I have Cisco PEs and Juniper RRs by your description it may crash ... hence better to avoid it - right ?. Good thing this is thread about iBGP not eBGP :):) Thx R. On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote: > Hi, > > > > Le 17 août 2018 à 16:28, R

Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router

> and that thing would then crash BGP on RRs, can't afford that happening. Then best thing is to run two or three RRs in parallel each using different BGP code base - even for the same AFI/SAFI pair I am seeing number of networks running single vendor RRs and when things melt they run around and

Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router

Just to clarify ... I was not really worried about how to follow various lists - mail client does a good job to combine them into one folder, filter duplicates etc ... But when writing general reply/question to Mark today about BGP sessions I noticed it only had j-nsp - but oh the question is gene

Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router

Hey Mark, It has been a while > We've been running all address families on the same RR's (different > sessions, obviously, but same hardware) Out of pure curiosity how are you setting up different BGP sessions to the same RR ? I think what Adam is proposing is real TCP session isolation, w

Re: [j-nsp] Force a reboot from the serial console?

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:33 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > AFAIK (please correct me if I'm wrong). Only Cisco is doing this, and > even they struggle internally with it, because it does add bit of > cost, thermal and front-plate density. Cisco's been going on and off > and on again with CMP port, ofte

Re: [j-nsp] [rbak-nsp] SE600 End of life status

AFAIK you wrong. You cannot open JTAC or TAC (Cisco) case if you don't have valid support contract. Same regarding software upgrades - you cannot upgrade to next major version without valid support contract. You cannot download any software from Juniper or Cisco without valid service contracts (ev

Re: [j-nsp] [rbak-nsp] SE600 End of life status

Hi Any how Multiven providing new software releases or fix software bugs ? Black magic ? Rob On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Phil Green wrote: > Jim, > > PS. Multiven provides _lifetime_ hardware and software maintenance service > for all IP networking equipment from all OEMs e.g. redback, cis

[j-nsp] FIB size at CFEB-E M7i

Hi What is supported FIB size for M7i router with CFEB-E ? Is it will handle 1M of routes in FIB ? Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

[j-nsp] SRX 300 stability and potential issues

Hi I'm wondering about adding new SRX 300 devices to existing network deployment. Our current network is using SRX100 and SRX240 in branches. As SRX100/SRX240 are EoS we need to deploy latest SRX300 devices. They're really fresh so my question is how stable are they ? Any experiences ? We will us

Re: [j-nsp] MX480BASE3-AC - whats inside bundle

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Chen Jiang wrote: > The only difference between "3" and non-"3" model is the enhanced midplane > to support new 500G line card. The old non-"3" chassis midplane could > support about 300Gbps bandwidth per slot. > > Is it delivered with old SCB or with latest SCBE2

[j-nsp] MX480BASE3-AC - whats inside bundle

Hi I'm looking what is devliered with MX480BASE3-AC bundle. It should be: - MX480 chassis - Fan-Tray - Two Power Supplies - One SCB - But which one ? SCB ? SCBE ? - One RE - But again which RE model ? Just to compare old bundle (without "3") - MX480-BASE-AC consist: - MX480 chassis - Fan-Tray - T

Re: [j-nsp] Separate internet transit network versus converged

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Tarko Tikan wrote: > In our case, we run BGP-free MPLS aggregation and BGP-free core. All IP > services, be L3VPN or inet, are terminated in separate edge boxes. Edge > boxes are only connected to core and are not in traffic path for other > traffic (typical aggre

Re: [j-nsp] Separate internet transit network versus converged

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Jesper Skriver wrote: > Almost certainly such documents would contain 'secret sauce' that > the vendor does not want to disclose to competitors. > Agree. It's always about vendor BU and Law Departments. "It's our top-secret technology" even they using merchant si

[j-nsp] Shutdown an interface based on CRC errors

Hi I'm looking for function which can shutdown an interface if CRC error threshold will be overdraft. Is any existing command for this in JunOS for MX and EX platforms ? If not maybe some OP script ? Thanks a lot Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper

Re: [j-nsp] vMX for ESXi

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Phil Bedard wrote: > > Yes I’ve used both versions. I know it’s supposed to be DPDK enabled but > I wasn’t able to push very much through the 5.4.0 and 6.0 images I have. > Not really that close to what the vMX could do. > Using 5.4.0 image In pushed easily 3Gbps

Re: [j-nsp] vMX for ESXi

> > This release for ESXi is joke and crap. Just waste of my time. > Someone who wrote documentation (Getting Started Guide) forget that VCP needs 3rd disk - metadata_usb.vmdk. After adding this disk vMX is proper detected and communitcation with vFCP is established. I noticed vmxnet3 for VFP does

Re: [j-nsp] vMX for ESXi

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Got me wondering in what use cases vMX is better than XRv please? > It's all about OPEX - we have people here working with JunOS for ages and never touched XR. Nobody will invest in XR training, also we don't want to have two platforms for

Re: [j-nsp] vMX for ESXi

>http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2015-August/100318.html Our ESXi'es hosts + CSR 1K VMs are already after above tuning Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.neth

Re: [j-nsp] vMX for ESXi

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > Cisco have been at this longer than Juniper, so you have to appreciate > that it will take some time to get a decent product from Juniper. > > Otherwise, you'll pull all your hair out. > > We're using CSR 1000V (1G AX licenses) for some routing

Re: [j-nsp] vMX for ESXi

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Mark Tees wrote: > One thing I noticed missing in the Vmware document/procedure appeared > to be the process for using SR-IOV with Vmware. > > Do we just follow the Vmware docs on this and the vPFE will pickup the > virtual functions or is this not supported yet? >

Re: [j-nsp] vMX for ESXi

vmdk/metadata_usb.vmdk Virtual hard disk with bootstrapping information Look what we have in F4 vMX TGZ from juniper.net ~/download$ ls -la *.tgz -rw--- 1 robert users 1561459359 Dec 29 06:36 vmx-15.1F4.15.tgz ~/download$ tar zxf vmx-15.1F4.15.tgz ~/download$ cd vmx-15.1F4-3 ~/download/v

Re: [j-nsp] vMX for ESXi

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Dale Shaw wrote: > ESXi support was introduced in vMX release 15.1F4. > > > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/vmx15.1f4/information-products/topic-collections/release-notes/jd0e52.html#jd0e52 > > Hi Thanks for update, great to hear that. But I downloaded 15.1F

[j-nsp] vMX for ESXi

Hi I'm looking for any scheduled release date for vMX (Virtual MX) for VMware ESXi platform ? Current releases are only for Linux virtualization (KVM) which is far away from VMware in matter of management and easy of use. So until VMware release for us vMX is currently useless. Rob _

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5200 and other software than JunOS

HI In last mailing Juniper wrote: QFX5200 switches are the first to run third-party network services using a disaggregated version of Junos OS that supports the Open Compute Project (OCP) software model. I hope OCP is the same like OCX. Regarding question why we just want buy more Dells - we woul

[j-nsp] QFX5200 and other software than JunOS

Hi I'm thinking about new QFX5200 and idea of software-less box (whitebox). Please correct me if I'm wrong - can I buy QFX5200 without software and install Cumulus Linux on it as 3rd party software ? (I'm doing this right now on Dell switches for one project) Rob __

[j-nsp] Cheaper way to have 2x100G and 16x10G wire-speed in MX480

Hi What is cheapest way to choose proper MPC/MICs to have 2x100G and 16x10G all wire-speed plus possibility to extend my configuration to total 32x10G and 4x100G ? Is it possible to have 200Gbps (400G in both directions) per slot in cast of malfunction of one fabric card ? What you can suggest ?

[j-nsp] PTX1000 pricing

Hi Any rumors about potential pricing of PTX1000 ? I just looking to replace edge peering routers and PTX1000 looks very very promising. Check pricelist from Sep 2015 but there is no any pricing yet Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.neth

[j-nsp] EX4300-24T and 40GE ports

Hi I have two questions regarding 40GE ports build-in into EX4300-24T switch. Can I use these ports as regular line ports / VLANs / 802.1Q - instead of VirtualChassis ? Are they support Breakout into 4x10GE ? Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

So what's the use case... Run this as the local RR? Or manage routes between tenants in compute? Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:44 AM, David Blundell > wrote: > > Has anyone testing the vMX software found out its RIB/FIB/L3VPN limitations? > > The Juniper datasheet at > ht

[j-nsp] Ping hosts in zones DMZ and TRUST

Hello, I try to config my SRX650. I defined my interfaces and zones (TRUST, UNTRUST and DMZ). I can ping all interfaces of the SRX650 (public @ DMZ, 10.1.5.2 INTERCO, and public @ UNTRUST) I can ping outside hosts as 8.8.8.8 for example. I can ping my INTERCO interface 10.1.5.1 But I c

Re: [j-nsp] EX3300 : Pbm with inerfaces SFP

Thanks a lot ! Now I can use the 4 interfaces as trunk link. Thanks you again - Mail original - De: "Raphael Mazelier" À: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Envoyé: Mardi 26 Mai 2015 18:31:14 Objet: Re: [j-nsp] EX3300 : Pbm with inerfaces SFP Le 26/05/15 18:25, deloin.rob...@laposte.n

[j-nsp] EX3300 : Pbm with inerfaces SFP

Hello, I configured an EX3300-48T. The 4 interfaces SFP have the same configuration When I connect the optical fiber in the optical transceiver, I have the green led on the each interfaces. But if I can ping IP @ of the switch (or the gateway) on interfaces ge-0/1/0 and ge-0/1/1 , I can't pi

Re: [j-nsp] QinQ on MX bridge-ing

I'll try. But what about VLAN 102 and 103 ? I have also IRB on VLAN 102 On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Chris Kawchuk wrote: > Try this > > set interfaces ge-2/1/2 flexible-vlan-tagging > set interfaces ge-2/1/2 mtu 9192 > set interfaces ge-2/1/2 encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services > set

Re: [j-nsp] QinQ on MX bridge-ing

first e-mail On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Chris Kawchuk wrote: > > Don't you mean 102 and 103 for the other vlans? > > > On 16/04/2015, at 8:32 AM, Robert Hass wrote: > > > set bridge-domains VLAN101 domain-type bridge > > set bridge-domains VLAN101 vlan-id

Re: [j-nsp] Stable JunOS for MX80

Can you write something details regarding this bug which you encountering on 11.4R ? Rob On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:28 AM, thiyagarajan b wrote: > Hi Rapheal, > 11.4 is what we are running now,where we encountered a bug forcing us to > upgrade. 12.3R8 have few memory related bugs which seems t

[j-nsp] QinQ on MX bridge-ing

Hi I'm looking for hint how to configure port in QinQ mode on MX. I need to have QinQ enabled on ge-1/1/7 (Customer) and interconnected via Trunk port to EX4200 on ge-1/1/9. VLAN ID can be 104. I looked at manuals but cannot find this. My current L2 bridging configuration: set interfaces ge-1/1

Re: [j-nsp] Transfer some task from MX to VRR

outer receives FIB from VRR instead of RIB. Rob On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Eric Van Tol wrote: > >-Original Message- > >From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf > Of Robert Hass > >Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 7:30 AM > >

Re: [j-nsp] Transfer some task from MX to VRR

5400/5600. So VRR == vMX without forwarding-plane. Maybe cost wise VRR will be cheaper than vMX, don't know. We will see in Q1 2015 when vMX should be available. Rob On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Monday, December 01, 2014 04:41:54 PM Robert Hass wrote: > &

Re: [j-nsp] Transfer some task from MX to VRR

>I think vMX can forward data. vMX indeed will be full-featured router. But my questions was related to move part of control-plane (basically whole BGP part of rpd) to external server. Maybe OpenFlow somehow helps here ? How openflow take care of eBGP to customers ? Session should be on router or

[j-nsp] Transfer some task from MX to VRR

Hi Just readed release notes for 14.2 and I found that starting this release I can transfer some task to external VRR. We have lack of compute power mostly on MX80. So my idea is to move all BGP from MX80 to VRR. But how it can be performed for external BGP sessions where I have just /30 or /31 s

Re: [j-nsp] Move traffic to strict-priority-queue on MX

sign particular traffic (DSCP) to specific queues ? Rob On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Sunday, November 30, 2014 03:52:58 PM Robert Hass wrote: > > > Finally what I configured: > > # Clear DSCP + BestEffort queue > > set firewall filter Bes

[j-nsp] 2x10GE ports on SCBE2 and per slot bandwidth on SCBE/SCBE2

Hi I just planning to upgrade few of my MX480 to SCBE2 (due to MPE4/32x10G). I noticed that on SCBE2 I have 2x10GE ports on-board. Are they normal 10GE line ports with all features ? Second how much bandwidth per slot is provided by SCBE/SCBE2 ? What I see : 1) SCBE - 260Gbps per slot in both dir

[j-nsp] MPC3E oversubscribe rate with two 10x10GE MICs

Hi I'm currently using MPC3E with one 10x10GE MICs in my MX480 and MX960 routers. I need to add 10GE ports, if I will put second 10x10GE MIC in existing MPC3E what will be oversubscribe rate ? I'm not sure but docs says about 200Gbps for MPC3E then It should be wire-speed if docs claims full-duple

[j-nsp] Move traffic to strict-priority-queue on MX

Hi I have deployment based on MX routers where I have to put traffic coming from one interface (it's video traffic - multicast) to strict-priority-queue on egress interface - core facing interface. Topology is simple: Ingress interfaces: - ge-1/0/1.0 - interface with video #1 - irb.100 - interfac

[j-nsp] Egress policer on EX3300

Hi Is egress policing or shaping supported on EX3300 platform ? I tried to configure policing 2Mbps for port ge-0/0/0, but receiving error at commit: Referenced filter 'Police-2M' can not be used as policer not supported on egress error: configuration check-out failed Input filters commiting

[j-nsp] Per Port Per VLAN rate-limiting on EX series

Hi I just want to be sure on which EX modes are Per port Per VLAN rate-limiting supported ? I'm interested this mostly in aspect of: - EX3300 - EX4300 - EX4550 - EX4600 Can any one also give me some configuration clue how to check it ? I have no experience on EX series so looking for clues how t

[j-nsp] MX5 and MIC 2x10G

Hi Is 2x10G MIC supported in MX5 chassis ? I just need to have router with 2x10G interfaces, and best choice will be MX5-T + MIC2x10G for me. But will it work or only 20xSFP are working in first MIC slot of MX5 ? Please advise Rob ___ juniper-nsp maili

Re: [j-nsp] R: Re: QinQ interface configuration question

I've seen this sort of a thing done on other platforms. The most you can expect it to put the more specific match up front ( unit 1 } outer 555 inner 200 } ) followed by less specifics towards the end ( unit 20 { outer 555 } ). But I'm guessing here, I've not seen this done and in principal

[j-nsp] Usage of older M10 Juniper

Hi I have old M10 router. I would like to use it for one customer. Router has Enhanced FEB, RE600-2048 and 3 GE PE PICs. My questions : 1) How much full-BGP feeds I can have on this machine ? 2) Which JunOS version you can recommend for this old buddy ? 3) How big FIB is available for IPv4 on Enh

[j-nsp] MX5 first supported JunOS

Hi We waiting for ordered MX5 routers. Currently we're using MX80 in core running JunOS 11.4R software. My question is which first supported JunOS version is usable on MX5 ? Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nethe

[j-nsp] MTBF of EX4300 (48 ports, PoE)

HI I'm looking of MTBF value for EX4300 (48 ports, PoE) switch. I cannot find it in JNPR datasheets Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] PoE for older Cisco IP Phones

2 (+0300), Robert Hass wrote: > > I have some older pre-standard PoE IP Phones (it's NOT 802.1af) from > Cisco: > > 7940 > > 7912 > > > > Will Juniper EX2200, EX3300 and EX4300 work with these IP Phones ? > > I know that they will work with EX4200 but

[j-nsp] PoE for older Cisco IP Phones

I have some older pre-standard PoE IP Phones (it's NOT 802.1af) from Cisco: 7940 7912 Will Juniper EX2200, EX3300 and EX4300 work with these IP Phones ? I know that they will work with EX4200 but what about newer Juniper switches ? Rob ___ juniper-nsp m

Re: [j-nsp] qfabric 1536k mac address?

If the QFabric controllers can do anything it's scale up the number of MACs that can be learned across the fabric. Their solution was novel before SDN and I guess it's to their credit that they are not trying to market the QFabric that way now ;) rgds, --r On Jan 2, 2014, at 9:10 AM, E

[j-nsp] EX8200 EoS / EoL ?

Hi As I would like to buy bunch of EX8200 + XRE I have question will EX8200 go EoS or EoL in near time as it looks that EX9200 is good successor of this platform. Can anyone comment is good choice to still go for EX8200 or maybe better spend few more $$$ for EX9200 ? Rob _

Re: [j-nsp] AFL license for EX8200 VirtualChassis

Any response to your problem from Juniper SE or JTAC ? Good if they confirm that both licenses are required - then we just will order them. Rob On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Giuliano Medalha wrote: > Robert, > > We did a bad experience buying only EX-XRE200-AFL. > > After t

[j-nsp] AFL license for EX8200 VirtualChassis

Hi I'm planning to buy AFL licenses for my 2xEX8200 + 2xXRE200 (VirtualChassis) setup. Do you need to buy : 2 x EX-XRE200-AFL 2 x EX8208-AFL or just is enough as I'm running setup with XRE/VirtualChassis 2 x EX-XRE200-AFL ? Rob ___ juniper-nsp maili

[j-nsp] SRX control-link and link is up without cable connected

Hi I just want to establish control-link between two SRX5800 and I have issue that link is always up - even without fiber patchcord connected. Should I use different SFPs ? E.g.JX-SFP-1GE-SX ? I used EX-SFP-1GE-SX transceivers. Did anybody had similar issue ? Rob

Re: [j-nsp] QFX 3500 and IPv6

c ipv6 features is targeted? > > Thanks, > Paramasivam. > > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf > Of Matt Hite > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:58 AM > To: Robert Hass > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net &g

Re: [j-nsp] QFX 3500 and IPv6

verview.html > > > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf > Of Robert Hass > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 7:11 PM > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [j-nsp] QFX 3500 and IPv6 > > Hi > I just want t

[j-nsp] QFX 3500 and IPv6

Hi I just want to be sure - Will QFX 3500 support IPv6 static routing and OSPFv3 in near future ? Is I see right now it's unsupported (according to Datasheet). I'm considering buying a lot of this boxes and without IPv6 they can be useless in future in some areas. Rob _

[j-nsp] IGMP problem

Hi I would like to setup static IGMP joins between Cisco and Juniper. But it's not working. Juniper is not sending IGMP Joins. Same configuration Cisco + Cisco working without issues. Any clues ? Interface configuration for Juniper at Cisco side: interface GigabitEthernet1/1/1 description Junipe

[j-nsp] qfx3500

Hi I'm looking for 1U switch with minimum 48x10GE SFP+ and 2x40GE QSFP. I see than QFX3500 can do all what I need - can this switch work alone without rest elements of Q-Fabric ? If someone already is using this switch can write something about stability and problems ? Rob ___

Re: [j-nsp] EX8200 VirtualChassis versus Cisco VSS

h > > XRE and the 8200. > > > > We've run 11.2 - 11.4 and pleased w/ the stability. Our VC is split > > between two buildings a few SM fiber pairs acting as the VC connections > > between. We've dozens of aggregation switches (EX4500's & EX4200's

  1   2   >