Re: [j-nsp] MX480 - BGP Session Not Coming Up

MTU... On 4/1/11, Keegan Holley wrote: > We migrated a trunk connection from Cisco 7206 to MX480. All the BGP session >> was up for a while & goes down. The following is the error message in >> MX480 >> (10.2R2.11): >> >> rpd[1358]: task_connect: task BGP_remoteAS.a.b.c.d.14+179 addr >> a.b.c.d+1

Re: [j-nsp] JNCIP Case Study - 1 Pg 42 - archive size and files

Yes, that's true. Unnecessary policy is not a good thing. Power of junos makes me abuse policy sometimes. :) On 9/10/09, Stefan Fouant wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Yue Min wrote: > >> Actually I feel the way ( all community in all routers rather than >>

Re: [j-nsp] JNCIP Case Study - 1 Pg 42 - archive size and files

Actually I feel the way ( all community in all routers rather than specific community in specific router ) would save your time not waste your time. On 9/10/09, Stefan Fouant wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Stevanus wrote: > >> Sorry for a little bit OOT. So suppose I configure bgp co

Re: [j-nsp] logical router user access

at we would need to configure it through the > global router. > > Hope this helps > > Thanks > Vineet > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Yue Min wrote: >> logical router is a great feature. however, I have some questions >> about how more efficiently user can acc

[j-nsp] logical router user access

logical router is a great feature. however, I have some questions about how more efficiently user can access to logical router. here's the senario: r1, r2 , and r3 are three logical router. I want define three classes and users, each with full control of its logical router efficiently. it means, w

[j-nsp] question about user access to logical router

logical router is a great feature. however, I have some questions about how more efficiently user can access to logical router. here's the senario: r1, r2 , and r3 are three logical router. I want define three classes and users, each with full control of its logical router efficiently. it means, w

Re: [j-nsp] ISIS default route question

works. On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Yue Min wrote: > hey everyone, > > I'm studying junos isis. well, most part is simillar to cisco, but I > got a problem with default route. here's the senario: > > ISP router ---(ebgp with default route )--> edge1 ( L1 ro

[j-nsp] ISIS default route question

hey everyone, I'm studying junos isis. well, most part is simillar to cisco, but I got a problem with default route. here's the senario: ISP router ---(ebgp with default route )--> edge1 ( L1 router )>core1(L1/2 router)l2 adj>core2(L1/2 router)->L1 router for propergating the def

[j-nsp] JNCIP questions: eBGP cast study

wow, found a few things I did quite differently than the author does. anyone interested to discuss? :) 1. "Ensure that all routers in your AS forward through r2 to reach peer prefixes when r2 is operational." The author set LP to 101 for AS1492 routes which are recieved by r2 and reflected by RR t

[j-nsp] (no subject)

hey guys, I have a few reqestions during studying JNCIP book. hopefull someone can help here. 1. Can I safely assume and configure following annoucing policy since it's the way in the real world: " send cust routes to transit and peer, send peer routes to cust, sent transit routes to cust. " I

[j-nsp] JNCIP question: do I have to config forwarding table policy to actually load balance?

Hi everyone, in Harry's JNCIP book, there're several places where load balancing is required, such as in ospf and bgp. besides configuring protocols to have multiple next-hop show up in routing table, do I have to configure forwarding-table export policy like this to actually install multiple next