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
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
Iirc enabling it on 1 unit will actually turn it on on all units on sFlow.
Re: IPFIX, it's probably broken, too. At least on the fixed config boxes it
is:
https://prsearch.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=prcontent&id=PR1365864
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 5:18 PM Olivier Benghozi
wrote:
> Hi,
> you
plained it as MSA being too ambiguous so both can do
> everything right and still not interop, unsure if defensive or
> factual.
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 16:34, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >
> > We've actually had the reverse issue where 17.4 is the only release that
&
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=
--
Tim
On Thu,
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
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
> ___
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
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
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
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 Everyone,
>
> Yet anot
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
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 anyone have an
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:
> >
> >
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Tim Jackson said:
> > Yes. Calling it decent is an understatement. It's really quick. It's a
> Xeon
> > E5-2608Lv4.
>
> Yep. The RE VM "only" gets half the resources (so 4 cores and
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
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
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
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
On Tue, Oct 31,
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
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 i want to close the loop
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 cisco ncs5501 might wor
Arista does not have RSVP-TE, nor fully featured BGP-LU..
FlexRoute for full fib usage seems a little like black magic & hand waving
though:
https://www.arista.com/assets/data/pdf/Whitepapers/FlexRoute-WP.pdf
The other cheaper option to the PTX1000 is QFX1 when you don't need a
full FIB.
--
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 mailing list juniper-nsp@pu
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'm fully aware that there is a complete
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 spun them off, so it ma
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 issuing a commit
>
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 use MPLS as the "underlay"
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 a full bgp
> table…… any
451m here on an MX104 running 14.2:
2269 root 1 400 451M 445M select 36:07 0.00% srrd
Looks to be the sampling daemon:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos15.1/information-products/topic-collections/release-notes/15.1F5/topic-104232.html
With Junos OS Release 15.1
em, but I
> like the software feature set I see on their website with MPLS and MEF
> features. However, I doubt the white box plus their software will be any
> less than the Juniper solution, but I could be surprised.
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>
&
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
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
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 ACX5048's.
>
> First comment is: if y
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
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
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
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
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
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 catches with abusing an
... 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
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
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>
> We are using 48S in production with 13.2X51-D20 & D26, standalone and
> VC (not VCF), L2 features only (MSTP, RSTP). TISSU worked great up to
> D20 (completely hitless), but I was told I couldn't use it for getting
> to D26 (it would fai
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
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
To be honest, I'd run them as a P instead and use the MX as your PE.
For large L2 flows over MPLS there's no support or plans (or maybe
even the ability afaik) to support any sorts of FAT-PW or entropy
label for the box. As an LSR they work great.
There are some issues in the current 14.1 code wit
filter-specific means that if you apply multiple terms in the firewall
filter with an action of policer that it aggregates across all of
those in that filter.
term-specific means each term gets its own rate in that filter.
To do what you're after you just do a interface-specific firewall
filter w
Speaking of RRs, has anyone actually looked at:
http://www.metaswitch.com/products/networking/virtual-route-reflector
?
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Daniel Verlouw wrote:
> Hej Mark,
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>> I'd deploy vMX as a route reflector. I was actu
Is MPLS CCC really a basic feature?
What other enterprise switch can do L2 over MPLS?
I'd imagine that EX4300 is capable of it (and more) that it can do it,
but why waste the effort making l2circuit work on Broadcom DC/EX
chips? It wasn't promised in the switches datasheets, was it?
Push for cas
ttp://twitter.com/networkceoau>
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>
>
> The Experts Who The Experts Call
> Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
>
> On 8 November 2014 15:35, Tim Jackson wrote:
>
>> Is MPL
Some good debugging:
start shell
vty fpc0
show qsfp list
show qsfp
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Darren O'Connor wrote:
> I've got the very latest code on as it's in a lab D25
>
> I've got two 3rd party DACs and it's going from QFX5100 to QFX5100. Both have
> the same issue. Same two ca
http://www.utdallas.edu/~ravip/cs6390/fall01/dhcp.figure.pdf
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
> My DHCP clients are all stuck in SELECTING state. Has anyone ever seen that,
> or maybe know what causes it?
>
> root@DVT-EX9200> show dhcp relay binding
>
> IP addressSessi
Basically everything is moving to jdhcpd.. It's only really licensed
on MX iirc (shouldn't be on 9200?)
set forwarding-options dhcp-relay overrides allow-snooped-clients
set forwarding-options dhcp-relay overrides always-write-giaddr
set forwarding-options dhcp-relay overrides trust-option-82
set
ACX is Broadcom Enduro inside. Basically a Cisco ASR901 (or Ciena 39xx).
Route scaling for all ACX is somewhere around 12k routes (give or take, its
11p on Bourbon Street)..
Licensing is only for ptp as far as I know. I had talks about reducing
price on units and per-port licensing was talked abo
After reading more about this, this seems to *just* be for the PTX... :(
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Julien Goodwin
wrote:
> And in a sensible form factor too.
>
> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/cse2000/
>
> Can think of plenty of other use cases for the box as well.
interface-switch..
set protocols connections interface-switch BLAH interface ge-4/2/0.144
set protocols connections interface-switch BLAH interface ge-5/4/2.42
Setup each of the 2 interfaces with the right encapsulation
(CCC/VLAN-CCC) and the right push/pop operations..
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:
Nab the Visio stencil for it. It scales up fine for printing on an entire
sheet of paper and has everything labeled. Throw the right MICs into it as
well.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Sebastian Wiesinger <
juniper-...@ml.karotte.org> wrote:
> Has anyone here an easily understandable graphic
Any of the EX3200/3300/4200 meet those requirements, but do not have the
full MPLS suite that the 3800X will have, nor do they have the buffers that
the 3800X does.
If that's all you want from a switch, the 3800X is overkill, maybe look at
ME3400E vs EX4200/3300..
--
Tim
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at
It can't even pass packets with > 1 label.
--
Tim
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Mark Tees wrote:
> Would it be feasible still for only outer label operations?
>
> To use as P router would you only ever need to work with outer label?
>
> Sent from some sort of iDevice.
>
> On 20/12/2012, at
gigether-options asynchronous-notification is the command for MX
--
Tim
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Tim Jackson wrote:
> MX has a gig ether option for doing this. I'd check and see if EX4550
> does. EX 4200 does not AFAIK.
> On Oct 10, 2012 10:38 AM, "Benny Amorsen
MX has a gig ether option for doing this. I'd check and see if EX4550 does.
EX 4200 does not AFAIK.
On Oct 10, 2012 10:38 AM, "Benny Amorsen" wrote:
> I am considering building a very simple setup with a number of ethernet
> interfaces on one switch each CCC-tunnelled through a common fiber to
>
I'm pretty sure this is the case. EX4200 will not forward anything with > 1
label.
On Sep 24, 2012 8:40 PM, "Jeff Wheeler" wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Caillin Bathern
> wrote:
> > On point 2 there, the ex can only process one label at a time but there
> could be a larger label stac
That's actuall pre-Trapeze...
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>>> Their AX411 access point line, for one:
>
> Humm, got in there when they acquired Trapeze.
>
> Rubens
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> htt
show configuration | display commit-scripts
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> Is it possible to somehow get the committed configuration as it looked
> after commit-scripts were applied? I do not want the commit-scripts
> re-run, I simply want to fetch the configuration as it
Probably a bad idea.. You shouldn't really even be mixing AC and DC
power in the same racks if you can avoid it..
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Kevin Wormington wrote:
> Curious if anyone has used one AC and one DC power supply in an MX80? Yes, I
> know the docs say it's not supported but
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB22001&cat=JUNOS&actp=LIST
You'll have to run 11.2R1 or later..
--
Tim
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Pappas, AJ wrote:
> Anyone have any issues or comments or concerns about adding a new
> ex4200px to an existing chassis of ex4200's? I
Personally I've never had a single issue with Finisar, Fujitsu, or Opnext.
SFP, SFP+, or XFP.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Robert Juric wrote:
> Thanks for the insights. Which 3rd party transceivers have you had the best
> luck with then?
>
> Robert
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Danie
LAN-PHY only on EX4200/4500 as far as i know.
--
Tim
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Dale Shaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Potentially odd question here but does anyone know, from 1st hand
> experience, whether WAN-PHY mode is supported on 10g interfaces in
> EX-series devices? Specifically EX4200 and/or
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Paul Stewart wrote:
> Has anyone seen these errors before and can shed some light on whether they
> are serious or not?
http://stagect.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.1/information-products/topic-collections/release-notes/11.1/index.html?topic-53314.html
The
This isn't running on an MPC carded MX running 10.2 code is it?
There was a bug that bit us that had some random small bits of frame
loss on CCC circuits on MX80 on 10.2.. I can't recall the bug ID, but
it was fixed in 10.4R6.. If I remember right, check your logs and
you'll see some parity errors
+1
Nobody wants "support" just don't cripple the platform. "Reasons to use
Juniper over Cisco" - 1 if this stays this way, or becomes the norm.
On Jan 7, 2012 9:28 PM, "Julien Goodwin" wrote:
> On 07/01/12 15:50, Salman Zahid wrote:
> > 2. In terms of 3rd party optics support , we are evalu
set system services dhcp pool 192.168.240.0/24 option 43 string
"192.168.1.1,192.168.2.1"
or the hex stuff, you'll need to set it as a byte-stream:
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB19509&actp=search&viewlocale=en_US&searchid=1304332102670
I don't think theres a way to use
Anybody tested the throughput on these in packet mode only?
On Jul 26, 2011 8:26 PM, "Bill Blackford" wrote:
> Used 210's and 220 that were running BGP, OSPF and NAT (both static
> and pools) all simultaneously. They do well.
>
> -b
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Keith wrote:
>> We need
>
>
> Juniper would really do well to introduce a 1U small/simple external RE
> which can be connected over Ethernet, to "redundantize" a box like the
> MX80, and to be a reasonably sized BGP route reflector.
>
>
If there was a like button on j-nsp, I'd click it about this..
Outside of a few bugs
That's correct.
On Apr 19, 2011 10:45 PM, "Thedin Guruge" wrote:
> Hi Experts,
>
> This is really to confirm my understanding is correct wrt to how RSVP
> inherits its metric,
>
> when RSVP and OSPF is configured in-conjunction, RSVP will inherit OSPFs
> cost to get to that network? presume it's a
They're fine to run back to back..
Average launch power -8.2 through *0.5 dBm*
Average receive power -14.4 through *0.5
dBm*
*Receiver saturation 0.5 dBm*
You'll never launch hotter than th
I've been told 10.0R4 is the release to run, but I have no real evidence of
why it's the right release. I've got several boxes being used for end user
aggregation on 10.0R3 w/o issues..
We're about to roll out 15 or 20 in a metro ring setup.. I'm going to try
out 10.0R4 and see what happens..
On N
Remove the "DATABASES" from the vlan members list..
The native VLAN will take care of it... Right now incoming untagged goes to
Databases and outgoing it gets tagged.
Outside of that, multicast should work. If you don't have an igmp router
somewhere you may need to enable igmp querrier support (I
And power needs... MX240 is a power hog compared to an MX80..
--
Tim
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:28 AM, matthew zeier wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Scott T. Cameron wrote:
>
> > Why don't you just get an MX240? They are available and on the market.
>
> Significantly different price str
+1
Droid is great for SSH... Connectbot is by far the best mobile SSH client
ever... Better than blackberry's offerings and WinMo...
--
Tim
2010/6/5 Frank Sweetser
> On 6/5/2010 3:36 PM, Tomasz Mikołajek wrote:
>
>> Ok, so if we are talking about mobile phones/smartphones, which one in the
>>
Do you have a policy in place like:
security {
policies {
from-zone untrust to-zone trust {
policy leo-vpn {
match {
source-address any;
destination-address any;
application any;
}
then {
permit {
tunnel {
ipsec-vpn leo;
I second that. Buggy still but getting better...
On Mar 22, 2010 6:24 PM, "Stefan Fouant"
wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-
> boun...
IMO, with the release of the SRX platforms I really can't see why anyone
would still be looking
82 matches
Mail list logo
