Hi,
Check out the feature map below:
https://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.3/information-products/pathw
ay-pages/subscriber-access/technology-overview-graphic.html
Here¹s the relevant L2TP section:
https://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.2/information-products/pathw
ay-pages/subscr
Not basically true. I guess my statement applies to policer counters, not
to the firewall counters.
Sorry. Nevermind.
/ET
On 9/30/13 10:43 AM, "Terebizh, Evgeny" wrote:
>Hi,
>As far as I remember the firewall filter will be showing zeroes unless
>traffic going through d
0 {
then {
count 2M;
accept;
}
}
filter 5M {
interface-specific;
term 10 {
then {
count 5M;
accept;
}
}
... junos 11.4R7.5.
Regards,
Catalin
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Terebizh, Evgeny
mailto:etereb
Hi
Please share the firewall filter configuration.
/ET
On 9/27/13 2:14 PM, "Catalin Petrescu" wrote:
>I have a dynamic profile for static subscribers configure as below:
>
>root@MX240-1-R6# show dynamic-profiles 9
>interfaces {
>"$junos-interface-ifd-name" {
>unit "$junos-underly
>ET> It's not that bad comparing to IPoE model. At least you got PPP
>keepalives, so it won't take a long time for a CPE to re-establish
>internet connectivity through terminating existing session and creating a
>new one. As I recall, In IPoE scenario CPE will keep existing session up
>for 75% of
;case the whole VC dies (failed ISSU anyone?).
>
>Cheers,
>Caillin
>
>-Original Message-
>From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf
>Of Terebizh, Evgeny
>Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013 5:34 PM
>To: Paul Stewart; William Jackson
>
I've seen a similar scenario.
Yes, I guess it's up to client's machine which PADO to use. Typically host
machine answers to the first PADO it gets.
It could be assumed that the load would be split between two redundant NAS
boxes as the least loaded NAS is gonna serve clients first (I mean it
would
Try using traceroute.
Use address assigned to the router as destination.
/ET
On 9/19/13 7:33 PM, "Harri Makela" wrote:
>Hi All
>
>I have following ICMP type (ip unreachable notification) and I want to
>know if our MX/J series routers responds to this ICMP type or not. i.e. I
>have checked fo
Hi there,
You might consider using RAID mirroring if your servers support it :)
/ET
On 8/30/13 12:42 PM, "Jed Laundry" wrote:
>If it's Linux, are you using LVM as a storage layer?
>
>LVM snapshots are your friend for making a consistent backup, regardless
>of
>if you use a tar script or VM s
say)
Thanks,
Evgeny
________
From: Terebizh, Evgeny
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 7:24 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: Juniper-Nsp
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] L2VPN Termination
Hi Paul,
Just curious.
Does it seem to work well?
What is the maximum amount of traffic going through the lt interface? Aren't
you fa
Hi Paul,
Just curious.
Does it seem to work well?
What is the maximum amount of traffic going through the lt interface? Aren't
you facing any limits upon that?
Thanks,
/Evgeny
From: juniper-nsp [juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] on behalf of Pau
Hi there,
Check out the 13.1 release notes: Configure subscriber interfaces over
pseudowire terminations.
Well. They didn't mention VPLS though.
Please let me know if this helps.
/Evgeny
From: juniper-nsp [juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] on behalf
Hi,
Why would you do that?
You could use RADIUS for accounting purposes.
/Evgeny
From: juniper-nsp [juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] on behalf of Wan
[eazy_...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:59 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [
Hi,
This functionality is indeed highly desirable for ISP.
AFAIK snmp traps might be used to signal a high level of DHCP pool utilization
on the BRAS.
Evgeny.
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net]
on behalf of
14 matches
Mail list logo
