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

On Jul 10, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > ❦ 10 juillet 2017 12:36 -0400, William McLendon : > >> 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 sur

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 IR

[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 cu

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 f

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, juniper-nsp-

[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 Onli

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" > To: R S

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 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 to

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 be

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 longe

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. http://ww

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

ecurity/topic-45272.html > > Hope this helps, > -Tim Eberhard > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM, William McLendon wrote: >> hi everyone, >> >> do SRX firewalls support a "tap mode" installation? Really just looking at >> it for purposes of evalua

[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 n

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 o

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

d), LFM did not come up. Thanks all that replied on and off list with ideas! Will > > > Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:35:21 -0400 > From: William McLendon > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [j-nsp] EX to Cat6500 link? > Message-ID: <5e853961-bb16-4049-97a3-351c48

[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 route

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] JunOS 10.4R8.5 on MX5? Am I forced to run 11.4+?

I think the -T versions are newer models than the non -T versions, hence the different code requirements and some MX5/10/40s working on different revs than others. my understanding is the -T models have built-in Timing support (whatever that means) will On Mar 22, 2012, at 8:26 AM, juniper-n