Re: [j-nsp] MC-LAG on QFX5100

, Will > On Jul 10, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Vincent Bernat <ber...@luffy.cx> wrote: > > ❦ 10 juillet 2017 12:36 -0400, William McLendon <wimcl...@gmail.com> : > >> if you are running a routing protocol over the particular VLAN on the >> MC-LAG peers (which is a supported conf

Re: [j-nsp] MC-LAG on QFX5100

if you are running a routing protocol over the particular VLAN on the MC-LAG peers (which is a supported config in Junos MC-LAG implementation) make sure you are running VRRP between the MC-LAG peers, even though it seems unnecessary. VRRP seems required for any ARP sync to occur for a given

[j-nsp] MX480 with new RE's -- Memory mismatch alarms

hey all, curious if anyone has seen this and knows why it happens or if its anything to be concerned about. we received new MX480s with the new 64G Routing Engines where Junos is in a VM, and on both MX480s we have seen messages like the following: MX480-2-re0> show system alarms 2 alarms

Re: [j-nsp] QFX mc-lag and v6 ND (Phil Mayers)

In this case I think they may have over-engineered the process, or there are cases of concern i’m not aware of as to why they did it this way. I have not ever configured Cisco vPC, and I understand it is fairly complicated too, but Juniper’s MC-LAG config requirements seem way too complicated.

Re: [j-nsp] juniper-nsp Digest, Vol 159, Issue 8

I don’t know whether it is officially supported or not, but I was able to get v6 working in a lab environment with MC-LAG, even with OSPF3 running and working over it as well. In v4 world you must configure VRRP to have the ARP sync work properly (this bit us on a MC-LAG running OSPF where one

Re: [j-nsp] EX9200 DHCP Relay

this is a working DHCP config on EX9200s — make sure you include the forward-snooped-clients all-interfaces statement, or any transit DHCP packet that traverses an interface without DHCP relay configured will be eaten by the EX9200 — its the most asinine thing in the world to have (a carryover

Re: [j-nsp] VLAN's on EX4300 with 13.2X50-D15.3

The CLI changes right now only apply to new hardware — EX9200, EX4300, QFX5100. The other EX products still use the “normal” way, even on the latest code. I’m not sure if they are planning on running the ELS syntax on other EX platforms or not. will On Feb 19, 2014, at 12:00 PM,

[j-nsp] EX9200 / MX Minor Alarm - CB 0 Fabric Chip Not Online

hey all, we have an EX9208 that is reporting a Minor alarm as follows: user@hostname show system alarms 2 alarms currently active Alarm time Class Description 2013-09-27 17:40:56 EDT Minor CB 0 Fabric Chip 1 Not Online 2013-09-27 17:40:56 EDT Minor CB 0 Fabric Chip 0 Not

Re: [j-nsp] juniper-nsp Digest, Vol 130, Issue 2

do you have Jumbo Frame support enabled across the whole L2 path between the two cluster members? On Sep 3, 2013, at 11:44 AM, juniper-nsp-requ...@puck.nether.net wrote: -- Message: 10 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 14:19:35 + From: OBrien, Will

Re: [j-nsp] SRX Source NAT internal users to two or more public IPs

I think I may have been able to answer my own question. I stumbled across this KB article which I think spells it out pretty well: http://kb.juniper.net/KB20711 On Jul 18, 2013, at 2:04 PM, William McLendon wimcl...@gmail.com wrote: hi all, We have an issue where we have enough internal

[j-nsp] SRX Source NAT internal users to two or more public IPs

hi all, We have an issue where we have enough internal users and sessions using the general outbound NAT that we are hitting the session limit for the single public IP due to running out of ports. (really its due to how Source NAT is carved up on an HA pair…see http://kb.juniper.net/KB14958 )

Re: [j-nsp] srx cluster - control and data link throuigh cisco

Do you have Jumbo Frames enabled on all paths between the two nodes? There is a required frame MTU that must be supported across the network for connectivity through intermediate switches to work / be supported. Also if i'm not mistaken by default the control plane traffic is tagged with VLAN

[j-nsp] OP script - failing to download code image

hi all, we have a home-grown OP script that we use to bulk upgrade EX switches for new deployments. New switches come out of the box (lately on 11.4R1) and the script executes and auto-upgrades the switch to 11.4R5 or 11.4R6 (tested fine with these). I have been trying to update the script

Re: [j-nsp] NSRP and igmp-snoop

if memory serves the NSRP communication is actually L2 Multicast, so yes enabling IGMP snooping on the switches for the NSRP VLAN likely will cause issues. This same problem effects SRX clusters as well, if i'm not mistaken. Presumably if you had an IGMP Querier on the VLAN then it wouldn't

Re: [j-nsp] Junos 12.3 Release Date

I can only hope this is all some sort of terrible documentation error. That list of features requiring an AFL (at least for the EX32/42/45/8200/xre) is counter to how we have been selling and implementing this kit for years. And our Juniper SE informed us a while back that 12.3 would no

Re: [j-nsp] How reliable is EX multichassis? 3300 and 8200

NSR was not supported on EX3300s until 12.1 per the release notes, and 12.2 added NSSU for EX3300s. I did not see mention of NSB in the release notes, but I have to believe it's supported for NSSU to work properly. Unfortunately I do not have access to any EX3300s to test / confirm.

[j-nsp] SRX - tap mode?

hi everyone, do SRX firewalls support a tap mode installation? Really just looking at it for purposes of evaluation of IDP functionality where tap mode would be the least intrusive method to see data vs having to put it inline (and then deal with the inevitable you put a device inline and now

Re: [j-nsp] SRX - tap mode?

this helps, -Tim Eberhard On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM, William McLendon wimcl...@gmail.com wrote: hi everyone, do SRX firewalls support a tap mode installation? Really just looking at it for purposes of evaluation of IDP functionality where tap mode would be the least intrusive method

Re: [j-nsp] juniper-nsp Digest, Vol 118, Issue 8

Your static NAT config looks correct. do you have any other static NAT rule-sets defined that could match the traffic (initiated from either side)? IIRC a session is only evaluated against a single NAT rule-set per NAT type, and if multiple match, it will pick the most specific. I think the

[j-nsp] EX to Cat6500 link?

all, this is an odd issue i'm having in turning up a new circuit, and hoping for some input / ideas -- the link between the EX and the Cat6500 is provided by a 3rd party provider (I think via DWDM - Sienna and Infinera gear). Both the EX and the Cat6500 GigE interfaces are configured as

Re: [j-nsp] EX to Cat6500 link?

. Thanks all that replied on and off list with ideas! Will Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:35:21 -0400 From: William McLendon wimcl...@gmail.com To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] EX to Cat6500 link? Message-ID: 5e853961-bb16-4049-97a3-351c484ea...@gmail.com Content-Type: text

Re: [j-nsp] ldp signaling vpls can't up

looks like you left out 'family mpls' on the core interface ge-0/0/0.14 config, which is required for MPLS to function. will ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] TCAM full on EX8200?

I think RAS probably has some insight into this, hopefully he will chime in. I seem to recall reading somewhere (probably on this list) that by default the FIB is somehow partitioned such that routes of certain lengths go into certain sections of TCAM . . . perhaps you are running into that?

Re: [j-nsp] Angry EX (STP?)

CB, for STP to be detecting a loop, I assume either EX4500#1 is also directly connected to EX4500#3? or does it form a ring with the MX80 bridging between EX4500#1 and EX4500#3? if there is a physical loop, but not a logical one as I believe you stated all links are p2p VLANs, you could

Re: [j-nsp] SRX for MPLS

you can definitely do MPLS on J-series and SRX gateways. It even says so on the datasheet -- however, as was mentioned, you must put the device in packet-based mode, and thus lose ALL security features (everything that is configured under [edit security] -- so Zones, Stateful Policies, NAT,

[j-nsp] SRX 3k A/P and IDP

Aloha, does anyone out there have any experience deploying an SRX3k series (3400 cluster strictly A/P), with IDP services? Anyone know of any A/P IDP-specific gotchas? or recommendations on running IDP in an A/P configuration? we are looking to deploy this setup for a customer in the next

[j-nsp] Help with DHCP relay issues on J2350 running 9.6 code

Make sure you have DHCP as an allowed service on the reth interface in the Zone configuration: set security zones security-zone zone interfaces reth0.0 host-inbound-traffic system-services dhcp I think that will do the trick. good luck, Will McLendon On Aug 31, 2010, at 3:24 PM, juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] COS on st0 interface

As far as I know, you can not do any COS on st0 interfaces yet, and I haven't seen a timeframe for when. I've seen mention of using Virtual Channels for this (whatever those are), but I THINK that might be J-series only, and i've never seen a working config of it -- only references on slide

Re: [j-nsp] NO traffic logs on JWEB - SRX3600

Log viewing in J-Web is not available in 10.0 I know for sure. I think it is due this year though in 10.3 or 10.4 (someone else able to confirm?). Strange, but thats how it is, for now. Good luck, Will McLendon On Jul 19, 2010, at 12:00 PM, juniper-nsp-requ...@puck.nether.net wrote: Send

Re: [j-nsp] GRE Bridging, is it possible with a Juniper box ?

hopefully this works...first time posting to the list one option might be to do an L2VPN or VPLS type solution where you tunnel the MPLS traffic over a GRE tunnel (only necessary if the intermediate network can't/doesn't run MPLS). I think someone might have mentioned that previously as well.