Re: [j-nsp] Junos 21+ Killing Finger Muscle Memory...

en-by/for-Windows-admins "Patching Policy" that says everything in the company is upgraded to "the latest release" within 14 days, no software version is ever "more than three months old", and similar messages of joy ;) Cheers, Tim.

Re: [j-nsp] juniper.net down?

On 19/10/2022 7:12 am, Aaron via juniper-nsp wrote: juniper.net down? Seems to be loading fine from New Zealand. Even logging in with my account worked, something that seems rare these days! Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] AFEB vs TFEB

Isn't the T for Taz, the old MX80 code name? On Thu, Nov 26, 2020, 11:18 AM Caio Fratelli wrote: > Greetings, > > Does anyone know why Juniper uses the name AFEB on MX104 referring to > its Forward Engine Base instead of TFEB? > I know that TFEB means Trio Forward Engine Base, so what's the mean

Re: [j-nsp] Appending customer ASN to BGP

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/as-path-edit-routing-options.html On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, 2:09 PM Dario Amaya wrote: > Hello, > > Our customer has own ASN from ARIN and want us to take care of all > routing. We already originate the custome

Re: [j-nsp] DHCP relay monitoring

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 13:48:16 +0200 Baldur Norddahl wrote: > [snip] > > I can open a case with JTAC for the cause of the crash, but I am > thinking about how to monitor the relay. In the past I have used traceoptions, which was helpful. Under system, processes, dhcp-service, traceoption

Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710

, but the Enterprise BU is definitely in a parallel universe. I asked about porting XR to run on UADP. That didn't really go over well. I am wary of NCS due to the merchant silicon and general uncertainty - why announce the Cisco 8000 with no family loyalty? Looks like a replacement to me.

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10008 and sFlow

te: > Hi, > you probably don't really want to configure the older sFlow monitoring > those days (with its various limitations), what you probably really need is > to configure inline IPFIX flow monitoring, as it is supported by QFX10k > devices. > > > Le 14 oct. 2019 à 19:49,

[j-nsp] QFX10008 and sFlow

hing wrong? Would be a bit weird if an interface can only sample sFlow for a single L3 subinterface. Thanks in advance, Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] 100G DAC issue between MX204 and QFX5110

Don't think it's just you. We've had tons of issues with QSFP28 optics across all sorts of hardware. -- Tim On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:38 AM Saku Ytti wrote: > Is it just me or does 100GE have lot more interop issues than we had > with 1GE and 10GE? > > Vendor rep ex

Re: [j-nsp] 100G DAC issue between MX204 and QFX5110

We've actually had the reverse issue where 17.4 is the only release that some DACs will function. Any 18.x release seems to break them. These aren't Juniper coded DACs, but just generic coded: https://paste.somuch.fail/?248d62d55916f17b#+flZp6LEb0ZY48AI/3rc4YidWw6LENIQTPxpc4O6j7g= -- T

Re: [j-nsp] Silly question for a Friday

Sorry, I'm thinking of ping/traceroutes.. On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 4:49 PM Tim Jackson wrote: > show route family inet/inet6 > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 4:43 PM Chris Adams wrote: > >> I can "show route " and JUNOS will do a DNS lookup and show >> the route fo

Re: [j-nsp] Silly question for a Friday

show route family inet/inet6 On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 4:43 PM Chris Adams wrote: > I can "show route " and JUNOS will do a DNS lookup and show > the route for the resolved IP. Is there any way to control that for > hosts with multiple IPs, especially IPv6? > -- > Chris Adams > ___

Re: [j-nsp] EVPN/VXLAN over IPsec over Internet

I've done some hacks with an MX to do inline GRE frag+reassembly over the internet with a looped macsec GigE port to get encrypted traffic with full MTU. You could add VXLAN to that and get what you want kinda. MX GRE inline frag/reassembly works well. On Sat, Jun 1, 2019, 7:44 AM Chen Jiang wr

Re: [j-nsp] QSFP28 oddities between Arista and QFX after upgrade

Check FEC settings. Try turning FEC on or off on both sides. Arista: (config-if)#error-correction encoding reed-solomon Juniper: set interfaces et-0/0/1 gigether-options fec fec91 On Sat, May 11, 2019, 6:32 AM Jason Lixfeld wrote: > I had no idea auto-negotiation was still a thing with 100G, b

Re: [j-nsp] 400G is coming?

han 3 groups of 5 ports) just reduces the electronics and thereby the power consumption by 1/3. I hope this helps Tim. Tim Rayner Optical Engineer, AARNet Pty Ltd street address: Building 9, Banks Street, YARRALUMLA ACT 2600 postal address: GPO Box 1559, CANBERRA ACT 2601 t. +61 2 6222 35

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 in 2-post rack?

You can probably use some 4-post conversion kits to mount it in 2-post.. The mounts/rails on the MX204 are very similar to the other 1RU QFX mounts. Either flush or center-mount: https://www.racksolutions.com/2-post-conversion-brackets.html https://www.racksolutions.com/4u-flushmount-conversion-ki

Re: [j-nsp] MX960 power supply stopped during ISSU

Power supplies have firmware on them ;) Regardless - I don't know much about the MX960 arch but do you have enough power supplies to maintain N+1 at full tilt? > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf > Of Aaron Gould > Sent: Wednes

Re: [j-nsp] Finding drops

You're looking in the wrong place :) You might better understand if you look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_frame > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf > Of Jason Lixfeld > Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 6:09 AM > To

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 Tunnel Services

I've done LT interfaces on MX204 with multiple LSYS' to build some lab topologies without issue. This was back in beta and worked fine, haven't run it on newer code, but I do run GRE tunnels in 18.1R3 without issue. -- Tim On Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 5:43 PM Fraser McGlinn Hey Ev

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Input Scheduling/Shaping

The QX/Dense Queuing Block exists for the MIC slots on the MX80. Looks like you get 12 queues per MX80/104 for ingress shaping. Doesn't seem to be tied to QX at all. Egress you get per unit on the MIC slots though. https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/task/configuration/cos-c

Re: [j-nsp] Use cases for IntServ in MPLS backbones

savvy government, they've since > sacked off various PSN standards without providing any replacement so > everyone is just sticking to the same expired standards for now > > __ The Q

[j-nsp] help with routing bypassing bgp path selection

rest to PE5. What is the best way to go about doing this? -Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] auto b/w mpls best practice -- cpu spikes

1476 Which code version have these optimization happened in? On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:11 AM Saku Ytti wrote: > Hey Tim, > > I'd optimise for customer experience, not CPU utilisation. Do you have > issues with convergence time, suboptimal paths? > > Which JunOS you'

[j-nsp] auto b/w mpls best practice -- cpu spikes

Hi, Attached is my MPLS Auto B/w Configuration and i see frequent path changes and cpu spikes. I have a small network and wanted to know if there is any optimization/best practices i could follow to reduce the churn. protocols { mpls { statistics { file mpls.statistics si

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

Hello, I have a MPLS PE (L3VPN) router that is acting as full mesh iBGP within the US. The other routers in the US are not RR and regular iBGP. This router also acts as RR for Europe and takes in full BGP table. Is there some caveats to watch out for? ___

Re: [j-nsp] Mounting a QFX5100 or ACX5048 on 2 Post Rack

https://www.racksolutions.com/2-post-rack-rails.html -- Tim On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > We are constantly having to mount these larger switches to two post racks. > To my knowledge Juniper does not make 2 post mounting brackets for these > switches. Does an

Re: [j-nsp] Router for full routes

30488:26 J-UKERN -- Tim On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > So the rest is for guest VMs then? > > > On Jun 27, 2018, at 9:57 AM, Tim Jackson wrote: > > > > Yeah 16G for the RE + I think you actually get 5 cores in the Junos VM: > > > >

Re: [j-nsp] Router for full routes

Yeah 16G for the RE + I think you actually get 5 cores in the Junos VM: % sysctl -a | egrep -i 'hw.machine|hw.model|hw.ncpu' hw.machine: amd64 hw.model: QEMU Virtual CPU version 1.7.2 hw.ncpu: 5 hw.machine_arch: amd64 It's really fast though. Great little box so far. -- Tim

Re: [j-nsp] Router for full routes

Yes. Calling it decent is an understatement. It's really quick. It's a Xeon E5-2608Lv4. On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > > > > On Jun 27, 2018, at 9:18 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > At this stage, I'd say the cheapest MX router you should go for that is > > decent is the

Re: [j-nsp] MX204

I think you're in the ~200gbps range for them if VXLAN is considered tunnel services. If not it should be line rate. ARP scale on 204 is rather large, even when terminating over a VTEP. That's my exact use case for the MX 204 tbh. On Tue, May 15, 2018, 11:49 AM Luca Salvatore via juniper-nsp < j

Re: [j-nsp] MX204

It's a great box. Basically an MPC7e in 1RU with a fast intel-based RE (Xeon E5-2608Lv4) Only kinda weird drawback is you can't use all 4x100G and the 8xSFP+ onboard. (https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/) 17.4R1+ only. The routing-engine VM gets 16G of ram. 32G total in the box. No MIC

Re: [j-nsp] What is your experience with the EX2200

;re considering purchasing these switches for our branch offices. Our needs include PoE, and basic routing functionality. What's been your experience with these switches? -- -- Tim St. Pierre System Operator Communicate Freely 289-225-1220 x5101 ___

Re: [j-nsp] MIC-3D-4XGE-XFP in a MX104?

Well, that clears that up. Seems odd they would choose the same form factor for incompatible designs, but that explains why the 2-port card is more expensive. Thanks! On 2017-12-03 05:27 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: Hey Tim, Simple answer, not possible, as you need PHY and 4x10GE does not have

[j-nsp] MIC-3D-4XGE-XFP in a MX104?

Hello, As anyone ever put a 4XGE MIC card in a MX104? Only the 2XGE card is supported obviously, but I'm curious to know what would happen if someone did? Is it just oversubscribed? Would it not work at all? -Tim -- -- Tim St. Pierre System Operator Communicate Freely 289-225-1220

Re: [j-nsp] Simple v4 vs v6 traffic measurement

PM, Daniel Verlouw wrote: Tim, On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: Can anyone suggest a simple way to measure interface traffic by address family? Currently, I'm measuring interface traffic using SNMP queries and just grabbing the in / out bit byte counters. c

Re: [j-nsp] Simple v4 vs v6 traffic measurement

Cool. I made up the filters and counters, and I can see them at show firewall counter customer-v4-down filter res-out-4 for example. Now I just need to install the firewall MIB for Cacti. Thanks! On 2017-10-31 04:50 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: Hey Tim, Can anyone suggest a simple way to measure

Re: [j-nsp] MACsec over a service provider

I've done 1g MACSEC over l2circuit or ccc just fine.. You can even do stuff like get an MX104 with a 20G MIC that supports MACSEC, loop a 1g port back into itself, carry that EoMPLS over a GRE tunnel w/ inline frag/re-assembly and do "encrypted" VPN using a pair of MX104s.. -- Tim

[j-nsp] Simple v4 vs v6 traffic measurement

ly to see how well our customer uptake is on the v6 side of things. Without getting into traffic sampling (may try that another day), is there a simple way to set a counter by address family on an interface? I'm mostly working with MX, but have one M10i in there too. Thanks! -Tim --

Re: [j-nsp] Using a QFX5100 without QFabric?

MPLS is now supported on IRB on QFX5100: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/general/mpls-limitations-qfx-series.html#jd0e57 On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Andrey Kostin wrote: > Chris Wopat писал 25.10.2017 13:00: > >> On 10/24/2017 05:30 PM, Vincent Bernat w

Re: [j-nsp] EX4550 (Un-)known unicast flooding at session start for up to 100ms

Hi Pavel, not sure if it's related but is very interessting. I checked the mac learning log on several 4550 and found the learn/delete indicator minute by minute. I think we will increase the entry counts per index an look if something getting better (or worse). Regards, Tim 2017-08-12

Re: [j-nsp] EX4550 (Un-)known unicast flooding at session start for up to 100ms

Hi Brian, yes we're using MSTP. The bridge-priority of EX4550 and QFZ are all on default (32k afaik), because the QFX is connected to a Cisco 6500, which is the Core. We're in the middle of a Cisco -> Juniper migration. regards, Tim 2017-08-11 16:55 GMT+02:00 Brian Nelson : >

[j-nsp] EX4550 (Un-)known unicast flooding at session start for up to 100ms

endor like this? Best regards, Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

[j-nsp] QoS on subinterfaces clarification

Hi, If i have 1 physical interface of 10G and 2 sub interface. How can i make sure: 1 Interface = 4G 2 Interface = 6G And then Queues on each interface. Eg: EF = 10% of 4G on 1 Interface and EF = 10% of 6G on 2 Interface? Do the queues, get percentages based on the shaping value? Regards! __

[j-nsp] qos output classifer and scheduler on same interface

few input sources and would only like to apply it on this interface. Has anyone done this and would this work? Regards, -Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper PTX1000

But I want it all and I don't want to pay for it :( -- Tim On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Hannes Viertel wrote: > of course you are correct and the HM cubes are off-chip and not on-chip as > my auto correct stated before. > > > the only point i wanted to make and here

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper PTX1000

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos16.1/topics/concept/mpls-features-qfx-series-overview.html#mpls-features-by-release On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Aaron wrote: > Thanks Tim(s), I understand the QFX1 isn’t mpls capable. > > > > Also, I’m thinking the cisc

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper PTX1000

full FIB. -- Tim On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Jesper Skriver wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 02:21:22PM -0600, Aaron wrote: > > I was thinking about the ptx1000 as a supercore fast mpls swapping > p-box. I understand it can have (24) 100 gig ! > > > > I've seen

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper PTX1000

s/188708 > > ...i have heard of the NCS5500 but I think it only has (4) 100 gig and we > are wanting 6 or more. Does cisco have a small form factor mpls router > with lots of 100 gig ? > > - Aaron > > -Original Message- > From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.ne

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper PTX1000

It costs wy too much is what I think about it.. -- Tim On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Aaron wrote: > Anyone using the PTX1000 ? If so, let me know what you think about it. > > > > - Aaron > > ___ > juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Debug ip packet equivalent for directed at RE traffic

monitor traffic interface ge-0/0/0 size no-resolve layer2-headers extensive -- Tim On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Alex K. wrote: > Hello everyone, > > By any chance - is there an equivalent for Ciscos' "debug ip packet" > command in Juniper? > > I'

Re: [j-nsp] QoS when there is no congestion

. -Tim On 2016-11-08 04:48 AM, tim tiriche wrote: Hello, Do we need QoS if there is no congestion in the network for Voice/Video traffic? Is there a case where Voice/Video traffic could experience any delay if there were data packets to process before the voip traffic? Would this be a concern on

[j-nsp] QoS when there is no congestion

][data][data] --> router -Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Infranet controller solution

The Pulse Secure you're talking about is the Dynamic VPN client, not as an Infranet enforcer.. -- Tim On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bill Blackford wrote: > I believe it's a licensing issue and I don't know the details of their > agreement with Pulse Secure after they

Re: [j-nsp] NETCONF vs.

Have you just tried to just compare source=>running to source=>candidate from get_config? -- Tim On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > Using NETCONF with Perl Net::Netconf::Manager, I'm trying to get the > candidate configuration to see what changed before

Re: [j-nsp] EVPN/VXLAN on QFX5100

You can run VXLAN over an MPLS LSP on QFX5100 just fine.. As long as the L3 lookup for the remote VTEP goes across an LSP the VXLAN traffic will too.. But it's not l2ompls.. it's l2ovxlanoipompls..... -- Tim On Aug 3, 2016 6:52 PM, "Chris Kawchuk" wrote: > You cannot us

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question

It can't hold a full table in it's FIB for sure, but in the RIB it's fine: inet.0: 588286 destinations, 1091804 routes (588284 active, 0 holddown, 2 hidden) -- Tim On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Aaron wrote: > Thanks, Let me test this claim that an acx5048 cannot hold

Re: [j-nsp] force-64bit

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: > On 1 June 2016 at 20:32, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > > I suspect that there is not that high of a risk of bugs due to this > change, in all likelihood, the only changes required for this was a > different compiler and perhaps the use of a few 64 bi

Re: [j-nsp] force-64bit

rks) to require this... Enabling this will cause RPD to restart as you kill one process and start another. Tim On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > I’ll ask the obvious question — do you actually have a ‘need’ for this? > > Even on systems with many peers, 5+ full t

Re: [j-nsp] srrd process

scaled environment with more route churn, for example 1.14M routes, the scan process might hog CPU for more than 2.5sec which leads to FPC crash. In some situations, the scan process can run for longer time without causing FPC crash, but it can cause BFD sessions to flap. PR1158154 -- Tim On Thu

Re: [j-nsp] EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048

hawk + their SW is less (by a little) than I was paying for Trident II boxes (QFX5100/EX4600) from Juniper.. I don't know what ACX5k costs, though. -- Tim On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > Tim, > > Do you use IP Infusion software today? I have never heard of th

Re: [j-nsp] EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048

You might be able to buy some off the shelf (E.g. Acton or quanta etc) white box Trident 2 box and look IP Infusion for an OS on it. It may be cost competitive and have almost all of the features.. On May 10, 2016 8:31 AM, "Colton Conor" wrote: > Aaron, > > Just wondering if you company compared

Re: [j-nsp] Full routes on MX5

hough. -Tim On 2016-04-26 08:33 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: Has anyone ever tried full IPv4 routes on a MX5? We have 3 peers + iBGP. We were told in the past that when a BGP session drops the MX5 could lock up for up to 2 minutes. We have MX80s (essentially the same box) with full Internet ro

Re: [j-nsp] cgnat on service module - interesting bgp advertisements

Mind pasting your show route for those routes and your export policy? On Apr 19, 2016 6:48 PM, "Aaron" wrote: > Very interesting. anyone know why this is happening ? Is this documented ? > I put a /25 as the public nat pool, but look what this mx104 is advertising > via bgp.. It appears to chop

Re: [j-nsp] protect ssh and telnet

Sadly, you guys messed up ACX5k lo0 filtering.. Even though it's a QFX5100/EX4600 inside.. -- Tim On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Phil Shafer wrote: > Aaron writes: >>I'm new to Juniper. and I'm looking to protect ssh/telnet on all interfaces >>on my juniper ACX50

Re: [j-nsp] Acx5048 ecmp feature and usage

For L3 and L3VPN ECMP should work fine. For any L2oMPLS you're gonna be SOL. On Mar 28, 2016 9:08 PM, "Alexandre Guimaraes" < alexandre.guimar...@ascenty.com> wrote: > Gents, > > I had a demand where the equipment that best fits is an ACX5048 for N > reasons > > I use some vpls and l2circuits, but

Re: [j-nsp] Encrypted MPLS between MXes

That's good news to hear.. Today EX4600 was my solution, and it actually works quite well. On Sun, Mar 27, 2016, 1:27 PM Saku Ytti wrote: > On 27 March 2016 at 21:12, Tim Jackson wrote: > > Run EX4600s as your P routers, and encrypt w/ MACSec on them. > > IIRC next-gen Trio

Re: [j-nsp] Encrypted MPLS between MXes

Run EX4600s as your P routers, and encrypt w/ MACSec on them. On Mar 27, 2016 1:11 PM, "Alex K." wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I was just wondering if there's a new way to encrypt MPLS traffic between > MX boxes without the good old encrypted GRE? > > MPLS over encrypted MACSec links, encrypted in

[j-nsp] leak routes between L3VPN VRF's

PE a) Can i do it only using RT (vrf-import)? or do i need to also implement rib-groups? b) can i do auto-export with policies on PE1 for exchanging routes only between VRF1 and VRF2 I would like to avoid rib-groups if possible and looking for simplicity and best practices aro

[j-nsp] Enable EVPN on existing mpls l3vpn network

junos recommended 13.3R8 code. I read NSR is not supported for EVPN. If i enable family evpn signalling will NSR be supported for existing l3vpn functionality? -Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman

[j-nsp] mpls auto bandwidth - minimum bw

? is there any harm in keeping the min-bw 10bps uniformly everywhere? will that cause any side effect? -Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

[j-nsp] edge acl and interface utilization

Amplification/reflex attack. Is there a signature i can use? With DNSSEC, i cannot filter fragments or udp > 512bytes. Any ACL recommendations would be helpful especially around (ip options, certain tcp flags, udp flood). Do folks implement any sort of QOS on the edge for floods? -

Re: [j-nsp] MX: mixin family bridge and family inet

it is not possible to use an unnumbered-address in this case. Googling a bit, I have been unable to see an example mixing a "family bridge" with a subinterface. To my understanding, "flexible-ethernet-services" should allow me to do that. Any idea? Thanks! -- Tim St. Pierr

[j-nsp] Bandwidth aware using BGP on ISP transit

, we can leverage RSVP subscription. Is there a way to automate this for Transit peers? In the past, i have used aspath for certain prefixes which is slow and does not help for short lived DDOS attacks. Thanks! -tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper

Re: [j-nsp] Gracefully delete MPLS RSVP LSP

Increase the route preference on the LSP; [edit protocols mpls label-switched-path R1-R2-a] +preference 200; On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Masood Ahmad Shah wrote: > Raising LSP metric sounds good to me > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:00 PM, tim tiriche > wrote: > >

[j-nsp] Gracefully delete MPLS RSVP LSP

c and rely on IGP metrics. eg: changing priorities, or can i introduce LSP metrics temporarily to 65k? Sincerely, --Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS admin groups implementation

The concern is, i have 6 LSP to every router in US and i am not sure if there is a possibility of any of the LSP's using the high metric inter region link. On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:42 AM, tim tiriche wrote: > High metric on all inter-regions would be the ideal and simpler way. >

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS admin groups implementation

High metric on all inter-regions would be the ideal and simpler way. I wasn't sure if i might be over looking or missing something. Any real world experiences would be helpful. -Tim On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > > tim tiriche > > Sent: Friday, De

[j-nsp] MPLS admin groups implementation

oes that mean, if an interface has either gold OR silver an LSP will not choose the path or is it an AND? Sincerely, -Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MAC filter on EX switches

rocera -> Exchange fabric. We would put an EX between the Procera and the Exchange and only allow the MAC from the MX5 to pass. I have an EX2200 that I may be able to test this on before we try it on the production network. -Tim On 2015-12-09 05:20 PM, Eduardo Schoedler wrote: If you do "

[j-nsp] MAC filter on EX switches

the wrong mac address as the source, and when it goes into a Cisco switch at a peering exchange, they shutdown our port for half an hour because of the cisco MAC security. We would like to put an EX in there to filter it while we figure out what's causing it. Thanks! -- Tim St. Pierre

[j-nsp] RR and VPN on PE L3VPN

3 get VRFC and VRFD, since PE1 currently does not have VRFC and VRFD in its bgp.l3vpn.0 table? Is it true, i will loose all my BGP sessions if configure cluster-id on PE1? http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos13.3/topics/topic-map/bgp-sessions.html Any advice would be appreciated.

[j-nsp] dynamic prefix list based on as-path .. is it possible?

Hello, Goal: on transit provider link, allow ASN XYZ to reach port 80 and drop all other destined to port 80? I don't want to build a static filter as ASN XYZ could have additional updates. Not sure if flowspec can match on as-path? Any pointers would be helpful. Thanks,

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper 10G Switch Options

for instance) that may require more than 1 port between the QFX and the > olt. > > Joe > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Tim Jackson wrote: > >> I'd recommend QFX5100 or EX4600. Same hardware inside for both. >> >> Beware that there are a few issues wi

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper 10G Switch Options

I'd recommend QFX5100 or EX4600. Same hardware inside for both. Beware that there are a few issues with DHCP and DHCPv6 pass through on them, but that seems to be resolved now. On Jun 4, 2015 6:22 AM, "Colton Conor" wrote: > We need a Juniper switch with at least 24 built in SFP+ ports. Looks li

[j-nsp] Fwd: Quick way to Shift MPLS traffic away from an interface

that particular router only? Is my understanding correct? - Is it a good idea to turn on optimize-aggressive? Any best practices or pointers would be appreciated! -Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/ma

[j-nsp] Quick way to Shift MPLS traffic away from an interface

that particular router only? Is my understanding correct? - Is it a good idea to turn on optimize-aggressive? Any best practices or pointers would be appreciated! -Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/ma

Re: [j-nsp] JTAC Recommended Junos Software Versions Old?

The support/downloads page is yet to be updated - that’s what I was pointing out. I’m reliably informed that this should change shortly. Tim Raphael On 12/05/2015 4:38 pm, "Euan Galloway" wrote: >On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:49:42AM +0000, Raphael, Tim wrote: >> MX80

Re: [j-nsp] JTAC Recommended Junos Software Versions Old?

MX80s are still showing 12.3R8.7 as the recommended. Tim Raphael On 12/05/2015 8:40 am, "Dale Shaw" wrote: >Hi Colton, > > >On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Colton Conor >wrote: >> >> So what is going to be the next recommended JTAC version after

[j-nsp] OAM LFM configuration

on best practices on the threshold for error rate. Does it make sense to run all of the following or would Ethernet oam be good enough? bfd on rsvp lsp and ospf and eth oam. Best Wishes, --Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] Stable JunOS for MX80

11.4R12.4 seems pretty stable can also go 12.3R8.7 as well. Tim Raphael On 16/04/2015 3:09 pm, "thiyagarajan b" wrote: >Hi All, > >Request to suggest stable JunOS for MX 80 with 2GB DRAM and Flash. > >Running internet service an

Re: [j-nsp] Arguments for commit scripts

Use an apply-macro.. -- Tim On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > Hi all, > > Working on a commit script with a regex that might need occasional updates. > Ideally, this could be stored in the config, and loaded at run-time. > Possible? > > If not: any

Re: [j-nsp] Request for help: Firewall config to match fragmented ipv6 packet

... V6 fragments don't exist. On Mar 14, 2015 7:36 PM, "Vijesh Chandran" wrote: > Hello, > Is it possible to match a fragmented ipv6 traffic using juniper fw term? > Please help if someone knows this. > > > -Thanks, > Vijesh > > ___ > juniper-nsp mai

Re: [j-nsp] draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

e started down that path, you start looking at the protocol stuff, and wondering what to do about that. Maybe I should leave it alone until the business people figure it out for me :-) Tim:> ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > > Of Tim Durack > > Sent: 20 February 2015 14:00 > > IPv6 control plane this decade may yet be optimistic. > > > > And most importantly it's not actually needed it's just

Re: [j-nsp] draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: > On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote: > > > What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite > like > > to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget... > > > > (Okay, I'd like

[j-nsp] draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

I notice draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16 was posted February 11, 2015. What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite like to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget... (Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP is the last piece for me.) --

Re: [j-nsp] Experience with QFX5100 13.2 & 14.1

For DHCPv4 that was the case, but it still persisted after disabling dhcp-relay. For DHCPv6, ipv6 isn't even configured on the box. -- Tim On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Michael Loftis wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Tim Jackson > wrote: > > L3/MPLS LSR - Grea

Re: [j-nsp] Experience with QFX5100 13.2 & 14.1

ng > to D26 (it would fail or cause issues), so I didn't try. > > I forgot to mention that we tried TISSU a couple of times with no success.. Evidently it had to do with CoS configuration according to JTAC, but it wasn't something I

Re: [j-nsp] Experience with QFX5100 13.2 & 14.1

L3/MPLS LSR - Great experience, one issue currently in 14.1X53-D15 is any traffic that would have been sent an ICMP redirect (even with that turned off) will be duplicated.. One copy forwarded through the RE, one copy through T2 caused by PR1022354 (there are other scenarios that can cause this, to

Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200

QFX5100 has L2VPN (LDP based) now, and will get EVPN support.. On Dec 24, 2014 7:07 AM, "Chuck Anderson" wrote: > EX9200 has more potential to support more MPLS features as a PE, like > EVPN. QFX5100 is a nice box, but won't do much MPLS (L3VPN, but no > L2VPN, VPLS or EVPN). See the Feature Ex

  1   2   3   >