Re: [j-nsp] Juniper publishes Release notes as pdf

I think the main story here is: Offer both/different versions! Once the content is there it should be very little effort to render multiple different outputs. In the days of ancient past you could just convert each section/page of the website (including Release Notes) into a PDF

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper QFX5200-32c and QSFP28 channelized optics

Hi, While it sometimes works to let 25G transceivers run at 10G (depending on Transceiver and Device(s)) i think in this case you will need a different transceiver. See e.g. HCT for reference: https://apps.juniper.net/hct/product/?prd=QFX5200-32C the PSM only lists 25 and 100 as being

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

Am 25.10.2023 um 14:25 schrieb Aaron1: Years ago I had to get a license to make my 10g interfaces work on my MX104 If we are going into the HW direction and not features. Yes, that is correct MX104 had some Port based licensing. There was also MX5 -> MX10 -> MX40 -> MX80 And some not so

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

Am 25.10.2023 um 11:57 schrieb Xavier Beaudouin via juniper-nsp: So there are a couple of enforced licenses even on MX ... and they have always been enforced. Subscriber MGMT is one of these features. Well I remember wanted to use dhcp server on a MX204 for a local lan used only... for local

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

Am 25.10.2023 um 08:01 schrieb Saku Ytti via juniper-nsp: On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 22:21, Aaron Gould via juniper-nsp wrote: My MX304 trial license expired last night, after rebooting the MX304, various protocols no longer work. This seems more than just honor-based... ospf, ldp, etc, no

Re: [j-nsp] CVE-2023-4481

Hi, On 11.09.2023 19:55, Tom Beecher wrote: Which in theory opens a new attack vector for the future. What is the attack vector you foresee for a route sitting as hidden with the potentially offending attributes stripped off? It is theoretical, but if you do $something with a prefix

Re: [j-nsp] CVE-2023-4481

Hi, Am 30.08.2023 um 18:09 schrieb heasley via juniper-nsp: Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 03:42:41PM -0700, David Sinn via juniper-nsp: A network I operate is going with: bgp-error-tolerance { malformed-route-limit 0; } The thoughts being that there is no real reason to

Re: [j-nsp] Converting QFX3600 from QF Interconnect to standalone mode

Hi, Its been age since we needed to convert one of them. AFAIR all 3600 Nodes can be converted. The bigger Interconnect Node had no option for that. They state a couple of warnings and pre requisites in the documentation:

Re: [j-nsp] polishing an antique m7i

Hi, If you have any active support contract or a contact to an SE person they typically can provide access to old and no longer listed releases on demand as they do archive them internally. We recently had to request some 14.X code for a complicated VC upgrade procedure involving a failed

Re: [j-nsp] FlowSpec rules being installed, but not matching any traffic

Hi, I doubt that BGP Flow Spec is systested or supported on any QFX5k platform. Feature Explorer (while not perfect :)) does support me in that thinking: https://apps.juniper.net/feature-explorer/parent-feature-info.html?pFKey=1541=BGP+Flow+Specification regards Tobias

Re: [j-nsp] what's the difference between vMX and vMX evaluation?

Hi, On 22.10.2021 08:42, Chen Jiang via juniper-nsp wrote: I see there are 2 download links for vMX, one is vMX, one is vMX evaluation. What's the difference between the two? On Paper the Eval is for public Evals (https://www.juniper.net/us/en/dm/vmx-trial-download.html) and the regular

Re: [j-nsp] upgrading an antique 240

Hi, On 15.07.2021 22:46, Randy Bush via juniper-nsp wrote: Good point! TSB16735 says last version of Junos to support SCB-MX960 is 16.2 Junos 17.3R3-S10 Junos 18.4R2-S5 Junos 19.3R3-S2 Junos 19.4R3-S3 so which steps to get from 14 to 16.2? 15.x 16.2?

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 Maximum Packet Rates

Hi, MX204 has some limitations in terms of pps rates for smaller packet sizes if inline-flow is configured compared to e.g. MX10003 not only but also related to the pfe/fabric layout (no fabric in 204). So even if they are the same pfe they might behave differently. The details are not

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and QSFP+ breakouts

Hi, On 30.04.2021 23:21, Ross Halliday wrote: Do FS QSFP+ breakout DACs and AOCs work on this platform? Is there some magic sauce firmware I'm too daft to find? We had some troubles in 40G and 100G DACs on MX204 and MX10003. e.g. 40G DAC worked in $old versions and suddenly stopped in

Re: [j-nsp] QSA modules and DDM/DOM readings

not be in there on that platforms or in your release. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 port 1G

; no-auto-negotiation; speed 1g; } Not sure if the Flow Control stuff was mandatory, but without the no-auto-negotation the link was not useable. It might also help to check autoneg settings on the other end (if you have access). -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister

Re: [j-nsp] How to pick JUNOS Version

would have to buy a service which analyzes you configs and cross checks PRs. But in reality nothing much has changed, even before the rename the recommendation was not very strong anyway, just a general guideline. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ j

Re: [j-nsp] ipfix is not accounting next-ip firewall actions properly

good thing, because you could keep the announcement active as long as the attack lasted. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

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

Hi, On 14.06.2020 10:50, Robert Hass wrote: 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 ? There are probably official upgrade pathes taking a dozen intermediate steps (three LTS releases at a time or

Re: [j-nsp] MX routers and DAC cables?

Hi, On 12.06.2020 20:39, Chris Adams wrote: Is anybody using DAC cables on MX routers? We have a customer with an MX10003 connected to EX4600 switches with 40G DAC cables (Juniper parts, not third-party). Upon upgrading the router JUNOS to 18.2R3-S3, none of the interfaces with a DAC cable

Re: [j-nsp] SNMP very slow on MX10003

the method of pulling it made no difference. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Rate selectability on MPC7E-MRATE

same time. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Rate selectability on MPC7E-MRATE

PFE anyway ;) -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Rate selectability on MPC7E-MRATE

and the box trying to be smart and mess up your ports. I think you cannot easily do that on the MPC7 -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Managing MX480 fxp0

link is pretty "slow" and already tasked with lots of other things which it struggles with at times ;) -- regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Ramp up old MX480

. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] rib-groups && VPN reflection

rstand what is going on, but well it is what it is ;) -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] fusion QFX5120 and MX204

X104 as AD. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Fusion using vMX and vQFX

Hi, On 12.04.2019 15:34, Aaron Gould wrote: Can I do Fusion using vMX and vQFX ? Will it work? Leaving aside the use case and what you would actually want/could to do with it this will not work. vQFX is basically QFX10k and QFX10k can not be used as Sat in any Fusion deployment (it can be

Re: [j-nsp] EX4600 or QFX5110

uniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/understanding_software_licenses.html#jd0e690 -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] inline-jflow monitoring

anges in the configured size of the flow table initiates an automatic reboot of the FPC, and we recommend that you run this command in a maintenance window." Whatever this means for now ;) I kind of remember that we changed that without reboot on 16.x and 17.x code on some routers. -- Kind Regards Tobi

Re: [j-nsp] inline-jflow monitoring

packets are actually a typical use case or not ;) -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] LSP's with IPV6 on Juniper

Data Plane. As there is no 4PE you either need to do v4 in MPLS VPN/VRF or run v4 and v6 Control plane in parallel to get v4 across. There is no v6 RSVP yet, but you might get your TE needs from SR/Spring. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vs Arista

On 14.08.2018 08:34, Mark Tinka wrote: On 14/Aug/18 08:26, Gert Doering wrote: Mailman claims "there isn't yet", but if Jared would add one, I'd subscribe :-) https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/ As would I... +1 -- regards Tobias ___

Re: [j-nsp] EX4200 virtual chassis problem, master going into linecard mode

But that is just me ;) -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Enhanced MX480 Midplane?

confirm my assumption (hence no speed difference between midplanes for MPC7 and only 480G in 3+0) -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Enhanced MX480 Midplane?

SCB* with 2+1 and Linerate for MPC7 will be SCBE3. But hey, your version would make more sense but all my documents and information since the release of MPC7 say otherwise. On the other hand there are not many customers in DE who would/should know better :) -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister

Re: [j-nsp] Enhanced MX480 Midplane?

edundancy and pave the way for future MPC) -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] LACP on mixed virtual chassis QFX5100/EX4300

of these corner case situations that nobody thought about and nobody ever encountered and nobody ever asked about (at least if you ask jtac :)) -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] pfed downward spike received from pfe

Junos log message you could put into your syslog message filter which probably already is a mile long. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Merging routes from VRF to inet.0

leaking methods for that direction. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX480 SCB firmware issue

is supported starting from 13.something and does not work in 12.3 -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

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

price. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] L3 to the rack and L2 services over MPLS

be: L3 to the rack switch with BGP and MPLS on top. Then over that implement your standard MPLS services for L2. EVPN should come to the QFX5100 at some point. So maybe check with your SE about a time frame and maybe beta builds. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister

Re: [j-nsp] SRX IPv6 VRRP

can configure RAs on Juniper gear (besides from VRRPv6) which uses/announces smaller prefixes than /64. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX5 and MIC 2x10G

, but thats the way their business goes. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

[j-nsp] move routes from VRF to inet.0

Hi, I am trying to wrap my head around a (seemingly) simple l3VPN Setup with internet access. I am labing this up right now and got stuck. The setup is very simple: CE1 -- PE1 -- PE2 -- CE2 We have a l3VPN between CE1 und CE2, routes are exchanged and all routes from CE1 are seen by CE2 and

Re: [j-nsp] m10 re-333 latest version of junos

98 percent Model RE-2.0 -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] EX4550 and 3rd Party SFP-1GE-LX

Hi, Am 06.06.2013 14:30, schrieb Saku Ytti: On (2013-06-06 18:40 +0800), Joe Wooller wrote: This is basically what is happening (i think) the PFE becomes unusable until you reboot. Is there a way to see what ports are on what PFE? I'm not familiar with EX4550, I would expect it's single

Re: [j-nsp] Am I carrying this route or not ?

can set next-hop-self, etc). It'll save other security concerns and possible free transit you're giving away to others. 2) Filter any traffic within to the AMS-IX exchange fabric (again, X/22), except for your point to [multi]point BGP communications. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister

Re: [j-nsp] SNMP ifIndex 0 on MX after ISSU

Hi, Am 08.03.2013 16:33, schrieb Jonas Frey (Probe Networks): did anyone ever notice problems with wrong/changed SNMP ifIndex settings after ISSU? We ISSU upgraded a MX from 10.4R9.2 to 11.4R7.5 and after this some of the ifIndex changed. We had that a couple of time with the MX series (with

Re: [j-nsp] EX Switch Question

Hi, Am 10.01.2013 14:03, schrieb Paul Stewart: Per port ingress and egress bandwidth control (rate limiting with burst) Per VLAN ingress and egress bandwidth control (rate limiting on a per VLAN basis with burst) As you mentioned this could be the problem or showstopper. We have not yet

Re: [j-nsp] Strange ARP issue on M7i

and the arp entry had low timeout values left but never expired. After clearing the route the arp entry vanished as expected. I guess something keeps the arp entry from being deleted as long as there are or were forwarding entries in the fib for it at any time. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister

Re: [j-nsp] Strange ARP issue on M7i

to 10.4) but this of course may have been coincidence. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] 6PE and BGP signaled lsps

/local/pdf/design-guides/8020013-en.pdf -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] 6PE and BGP signaled lsps

Am 24.07.2012 07:21, schrieb Antti Ristimäki: On 2012-07-23 16:22, Tobias Heister wrote: The document about scaling with labeled bgp [2] has a section about 6PE but it does not help much. First of all the method explained to get interface routes to inet6.3 does not work (at least on 10.4R9

[j-nsp] 6PE and BGP signaled lsps

Dear All, I am trying to wrap my head around this for some days now and it seems I am stuck. Sorry for the lengthy post, bit I tried to give as much information as possible. I have 6 routers setup like this, currently all are logical-systems on a MX80-48T running 10.4R9 in our lab. /--- 9

Re: [j-nsp] 6PE and BGP signaled lsps

Am 23.07.2012 16:14, schrieb Per Granath: Is there any reason why you are not running LDP-tunneling to/from R4/R8 and R10? This woule be a viable solution, but as mentioned per definition it is not allowed (or for a better term wanted) in this scenario to extend ldp beyond 4, 8 and 5 (not

Re: [j-nsp] 6PE and BGP signaled lsps

Am 23.07.2012 16:28, schrieb Per Granath: Am 23.07.2012 16:14, schrieb Per Granath: Is there any reason why you are not running LDP-tunneling to/from R4/R8 and R10? This woule be a viable solution, but as mentioned per definition it is not allowed (or for a better term wanted) in this