Hello Lee,
at least for link flapping issues (but not other session flapping reasons) you
could set the hold-time:
set interfaces xy hold-time up 30
This would delay the link to come up.
kind regards
Rolf
On 27/04/2024 12:34, Sean Clarke via juniper-nsp wrote:
Hi Lee
Would Flap Damping
Hello Chris,
do you have a loopback filter applied that could drop the packets?
kind regards
Rolf
On 25/01/2022 20:51, Chris Adams via juniper-nsp wrote:
I'm trying to add VRRP for IPv6 to a pair of MX150s (that are already
running VRRP for IPv4). I've switched from VRRPv2 to VRRPv3, and the
Hello Muruganandham,
as long as the physical interface is up, R1 will have all units up because
R1 is not aware that you shut some logical interface on R2.
kind regards
Rolf
> Hi,
>
> R1 and R2 are connected directly over a xe interface with vlan tagging
> enabled. Say there are 10 units in the
Hi Cristian,
did you try to apply a filter on both interfaces, i.e. add some accept-all
filter for lo0.0?
I read that the lo0.0 filter is also used in the other instances if there
is no own filter set, but not if this applies vice-versa (at least it
seams to be the case).
kind regards
Rolf
> Hi
Hello Gavin,
no, you cannot configured Fusion fpcs that way.
regards
Rolf
> Can't you do:
>
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/rate-selectability-configuring.html#id-configuring-rate-selectability-on-mx204-to-enable-different-port-speeds
>
Hello,
this is really interesting.
We have a MX204 (Fusion AD, running Junos 18.4R1) + EX4300 (Fusion SD)
running and found out you cannot set the port speed on the RJ45 ports of
the EX4300 in that combination.
We discussed this 3 months because Juniper wanted to tell us that this is
by design be
Hi,
at least for Fusion Provider Edge it will not.
vMX (and MX150) are not supported.
kind regard
Rolf
> Can I do Fusion using vMX and vQFX ? Will it work?
>
>
>
>
>
> -Aaron
>
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.net
Hi,
usually they say not more than 2 major releases in one step (i.e. 13 -> 15
-> 17).
kind regards
Rolf
> 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
>
>
Hello,
as far as I see the feature difference is HQoS:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/reference/general/mpc-mx-series-mpc2e-features.html
regards
Rolf
> Hi list,
>
> Can anyone tell me the differences in scaling or features of the
> MPC2E-3D-NG-R-B v
Hello,
we run ibgp over ISIS/MPLS (exchanging loopback IPs only) and run BGP
loopback to loopback (next-hop self).
Can somebody tell me if there is a possibility to use the igp metric for
the bgp routes.
Let's say I have 2 peerings (AMSIX/DECIX) and some kind of ring network.
My network is closer
Hi Adam,
I do not agree with your praise for the vm lab.
When I think of the last (real) issues in our network or things that
fucked up with Software-Upgrades, in most of the cases testing it with an
virtual device before would not have helped at all.
Some samples:
We had 2x MX960 that failed dur
Hi,
we used some EX4550 switches with 40G QSFP and 15.1 software for some time
and had no issues at all with them.
Don't know which R Realese we used (something from end of 2017 or
beginning 2018) before replacing them with 96 Port QFX some months ago.
We used them for Layer2 only, so no clue if t
Hi,
times will depend on the type of failure.
If the upstream router fails but your link does not go down (for example
if there is a switch between the routers), you will have a BGP session
timeout after 3 minutes (with default config) and then the router starts
to change the routes, which can tak
Hi,
started with a "everything configured separately" network (on
Cisco/Quagga) but now I prefer both together in one group (started with it
during a vendor replacement (Cisco to Juniper) and new config from scratch
2 years ago).
Because it is easier to handle (shut only one group, do not forget
Hello,
we run a pair of MX960/RE-S-X6-64G (without MC-LAG) since a year now with
16.1.
In first release we hit 2 bugs, 16.1R4-S2.2 works fine since 6 months.
Here also everybody was weeping about the evil new software, in the last
year we had several situations we wanted to use working code from t
Hi,
we run 6 of them with 15.1X53-D56 (pure layer2 stanmdalone boxes, no
specials, out of band management with external firewalling, i.e. without
local firewall filters).
In opposite to the older releases (first steps with them were cruel, first
release was more some kind of "pre-alpha early acce
Hello Andrey,
we use one pair since December for an new installation running 16.1R4-S2.2
currently.
The setup is quite basic stuff without curiosities (full table in inet.0,
3.6M routes in rib, ISIS+BGP, a few VPLS instances, a bit VRRP and a few
interface filters).
We hit one major bug (PR1240960
Hello,
we (Alex and I work for the same company) are speaking about 2 routers + 1
scrubbing device each location/setup and separated ip aggregates each
location.
So all routers will have a direct connection to the scrubbing center (in
and out) as well as external connections (2-5 logical interface
Hello,
does anyone have experience with a non-VRF solutions?
I think about redirecting with an interface filter and a prefix-list to
change the routing based on the incoming interface:
set firewall family inet filter border-filter term scrubbing from
destination-prefix-list redirect-to-scrubbing
Hello,
thank you both for your feedback.
Both versions work for me as far as I see.
If the 200MBit are included in the total bandwidth does not matter in my
case, I just want to make sure a 15GBit ddos to a 1 GBit customer does not
impact the 10GBit uplink of the access switch, so I will it be se
Hello,
I am wondering how to combine IPv4 and IPv6 traffic in a single policer
together with protocol-specific filtering.
Let's say I want to limit ntp traffic to 200MBit and the total logical
interface bandwidth to 1GBit.
As far as I see I cannot use a single filter for IPv4 and IPv6 because I
Hello Serge,
this works, but that is exactly the config I would like to avoid.
In case of 2 communities this adds a third one, but in case of 2x 10
communities that can be combined this adds 100 additional communities.
kind regards
Rolf
> Hello,
>
> Have you tried this?
>
> set policy-options co
Hello,
please show me an example, maybe I understood wrong.
If I just create multiple policies and add them to the import/export
statement, they are processed indiviually one after another.
This would result in the same OR-behaviour.
If this match was the whole policy I could combine 2 terms that
Hello,
I wanted to match 2 named communities in a policy and I am interested how
you solve such things.
policy-options {
policy-statement xy {
from {
community [a b];
}
}
community a members 123:1;
community b
Hello Guys,
has anybody out there QinQ running between a MX and a Cisco Catalyst?
I need some help with such a setup.
We got some MX960 and EX3400 boxes to replace some Cisco 6500.
On the EX3400 I got tagged and untagged frames forwarded but no STP
packets because EX3400 does not support Layer2 Pr
Hi,
just an idea for networks with small budget that do not want to blackhole
the destination but also do not want attack traffic to enter their
network:
Rent 1 additional ports from each upstream provider and convince the
upstream provider to accept /32 routes without exporting them (I know not
Hi,
just ran into that issue after creating a customer vlan on a MX480 with
RE-S-1300-2048:
"Too many VRRP instances on ae0. Maximum allowed is 1024."
According to what I can find this looks to me like a global limit and not
an ae-specific or RE-specific value:
"Note: A maximum of 1024 VRRP inst
Hi,
I have a quite simple setup, SRX with a WAN connection and some LAN stuff.
WAN is single-homed.
I now want to add a second uplink interface and put it into the existing
WAN/untrust zone.
So the traffic may flow async (interface point of view) but sync (zone
point of view).
Will this require an
28 matches
Mail list logo
