Does anyone know how to syslog the assignment of prefix delegation?
My syslog server is getting the message about the IA_NA single WAN IPv6
addresses but not the CPE delegated prefix.
Using traceoptions I can see the PD in local log file jdhcpd.
How are you all centrally tracking your IPv6 pref
I see IA_PD prefix delegation logging in the local jdhcpd file. I need the PD
assignment per CPE logged and sent to a remote syslog server. Does any know
how to accomplish this? I enabled several traceoption flags to get the PD
activity to show up in jdhcpd locally.
Aaron
___
When you look in the route table, do you see the v6 PD routes there? If so,
are they access-internal route preference type 12? If so, perhaps create an
ospf3 export policy matching on that to get them advertised
BTW, I fixed my v6 neighbor discovery with the windows pc… I bounced the
etherne
I can’t help at the moment, but I’m working on a similar setup… if you don’t
mind, please share the v6-related Junos configs you have so far. I added a v6
prefix to my lab ACX5048 and am not seeing entries in neighbor table and I’m
forgetting if I need to enable NDP or something
Aaron
> On J
Resolved… with the following…
FPC showed a difference between what was running and what is available…
reminiscent of IOS-XR upgrades and subsequent fpd/fpga upgrades.
show system firmware
FPC 0ZL30634 DPLL 9 6022.0.0 7006.0.0
OK
request system fir
As I recall, proxy-arp behavior is proven by looking in the local host arp
cache and finding entries for foreign ip’s mapped to the default gateway’s mac
address. If that is still occurring, then it would seem that proxy arp
functionality is still working and you can move on to tshooting someth
…which is probably why you can configure it as “0” and Junos expands it to
“0.0.0.0”
Aaron
> On Nov 28, 2023, at 10:07 AM, Christian Scholz via juniper-nsp
> wrote:
>
> Also might be worth mentioning that the Router-ID - although it might look
> like one and you would usually use one you al
I recall the MX204 being like that… an XE interface with a 1g speed command on
the interface
Aaron
> On Nov 3, 2023, at 11:00 AM, Olivier Benghozi via juniper-nsp
> wrote:
>
> Actually 1G ports are «10G ports operating at 1G speed».
> So, configured as 10G ports on chassis side, giga-ether
Years ago I had to get a license to make my 10g interfaces work on my MX104
Aaron
> On Oct 25, 2023, at 5:03 AM, Tobias Heister via juniper-nsp
> wrote:
>
> 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
/
set services analytics sensor my-sensor-17 resource
/junos/system/linecard/npu/memory/
Aaron
> On Oct 18, 2023, at 8:48 AM, Aaron1 wrote:
>
> I have an MX304 in the lab, evaluating it at the moment. Junos: 22.2R3.15
>
> Telemetry is running and a little different than what
Also saw this message too…
Error related to jflow-specific reporting rate
[edit services analytics]
'sensor my-sensor-21'
reporting-rate can't be less than 30sec for Inline Jflow Sensor on mx304!
error: configuration check-out failed
Aaron
> On Oct 18, 2023, at 8:48
I have an MX304 in the lab, evaluating it at the moment. Junos: 22.2R3.15
Telemetry is running and a little different than what I have on my MX960’s
Also, I get a license warning when committing OSPF and LDP. We got a license
from our account team and now we don’t see that message anymore
Juniper is sending me a new one, thinking it’s a faulty unit.
Aaron
> On Jun 13, 2023, at 10:28 AM, Andrey Kostin wrote:
>
> Aaron Gould via juniper-nsp писал(а) 2023-06-12 11:22:
>
>> interestingly, the PR is said to be fixed in 22.2R2-EVO, wouldn't that
>> follow that it should be fixed in
Interesting, that KB link mentions...
"From Junos 19.1R1, we support "High-performance mode" to enable WAN Output
block resource allocation. In this mode, better throughput is achieved at
line-rate traffic for small sized packets."
Maybe this will help others and OP achiever higher rates
-Aaro
I connected 2 dc's using evpn-mpls using the virtual-switch instance type...
as I think Roger mentioned it allows for multiple vlans via one evpn
The limitation you mention with ACX-type boxes is another reason why the
MX204 is becoming more attractive of an option... well, I'm saying that not
rea
Yeah, crazy how there's many mtu differences...apparently cosmetic since we
all know ethernet always has a header !
IOS (classic and XE) doesn't include eth header
IOS-XR like MX - does include eth header
For some reason on my MX104's I did...
set interfaces ae10 mtu 9192
here's some things I'v
I run martini rfc 4447 ldp-based l2circuits as well as vpls on our mx204’s and
also acx5048’s (I think junos 15.x and 17.x on 5048 and I think it’s 18.x on
204)… I don’t think I’ve tried mpls on qfx5120 (not sure what version of
gfx5100) you use.
I just tried to lab up l2circuit on one of m
Of the interfaces configured for mpls on this acx, they show max labels 3
me@5048> show mpls interface detail | grep "Interface|labels"
Interface: ae0.0
Maximum labels: 3
Interface: ae40.0
Maximum labels: 3
Interface: xe-0/0/0.0
Maximum labels: 3
Interface: ge-0/0/3.0
Maximum labels: 3
I
I know of a few methods for steering traffic in MPLS-TE/RSVP-TE, I've done
this in IOS-XR, but not in Junos at this point... but i found this link that
might help in Junos... https://www.inetzero.com/in-control-with-rsvp/
One way is to change the te-metric on that P router that you don't want lsp
Different platform but, I recall the ACX5048 having all sorts of SFLOW
limitations... something like, only one direction, not on ae's, not on L2
interfaces, etc.
-Aaron
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net
i see ge interfaces in my SRX300 and older SRX240... also I'm pretty sure
legacy MX use ge for 1 gig inerfaces, and perhaps it's just those newer
MX204/10003 that don't.
user1@my-srx> show version
Hostname: my-srx
Model: srx300
Junos: 15.1X49-D170.4
JUNOS Software Release [15.1X49-D170.4]
user1
I found a few things in my notes from when I deployed a few MX204's ...
Early on I had Junos: 17.4R2.4 and 1 gig SFP's wouldn't work... said
UNSUPPORTED for 1 gig sfp's 4,5,7
root@lab-mx204> show chassis hardware
Hardware inventory:
Item Version Part number Serial number Descri
? " For MX/SRX (and I assume PTX and maybe ACX - don't much deal with those
products ) xe is ONLY name allowed" ?
I see otherwise...
MX... MPC7E-MRATE (however et is the name for 40 gig and 100 gig) xe is also
used, but with colon notation)
Physical interface: xe-0/1/5:3, Enabled, Physical link
Thanks ytti
We still test drive a used car before purchasing, even though, the real test
will be how it perform all day long up and down the highway...day after day.
Yeah I don't test at scale for pps, and load of any and every protocol. Geez,
that's a lot of testing. I think IXIA and Spirent
Agreed. I like your philosophy about network software upgrades. if you
don't absolutely need to, then don't. I don't like to change my network if
it's running along just fine.
Another reason for upgrades is that a vendor is no longer going to work with
you because of EoS code. I've had that
Thanks KV, also, if you just wanted to clear that high cpu thing, you can do
this...
show system processes extensive | except 0.0
* get the process ID of the fxpc hogging process...in this case it's 1820
me@acx5048> show system processes extensive | except 0.0
last pid: 7231; load averages:
1 - https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB33988
(pretty sure that avoids the usb craziness, if memory serves me right, I
think Juniper created that KB from my lab 5048 test back in March 2019. Now
I'm wondering if I tried to go to like 15.x.D61 or something prior to trying
to go
Thanks Kody, 2 questions sir... I recently began moving towards that same
version (17.4R2-S11) as I was hitting PR1419761 high cpu.
1 - did you upgrade straight from 15.1x54D51 to 17.4R2-S11 , or did you take
an intermediate step? Asking since JTAC recently told me that this was too
far of a jump
Amen to that. I recall a few years back, going with 15.1X54-D51.7 for the
ACX5048 and having complete outage on irb's in L3VPN's with no dhcp relay
(ip helper) capability. ...and being baffled as I recall that the D51
version was on the JTAC recommended list. (D61 fixed it) So yeah, I agree
with
I had to do this with my cgnat deployment. I had an unforeseen and
undesirable result of all my customer facing mpls pe's using one and only
one of my cgnat boundary mx960's. (this was via an mpls l3vpn) not good, I
need the pe's to flow towards the igp-closest mx960 towards the internet.
Thus lo
With vMX I understand that as more performance is needed, more vcpu, network
card(s) and memory are needed. As you scale up, a single vcpu is still used
for control plane, any additional vcpu‘s are used for forwarding plane. The
assignment of resources is automatic and not configurable.
Aaron
I see you using ...
lt-0/0/0.100
lt-0/0/0.101
You might be hitting something I found a while back with lsys, same MAC address
on both sides of tunnel link , issues with that
If you are hitting up against that problem, Try either sitting MAC address on
one side OR sitting a static arp entry on
I use the per-vrf dhcp-relay in ACX5048
Aaron
> On Dec 19, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
>
> Nathan Ward [nw...@daork.net] wrote:
>> Hi Chris, check out the forward-only-replies option, pretty sure there was
>> some stuff there I had to fiddle with.
>>
>> Can you post your config?
Dang typos...
Did you apply local prefix leaking feature using auto-export to get multiple
vrfs talking on same PE ?
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/nce/topics/concept/auto-export-overview.html
Aaron
> On Dec 19, 2018, at 1:13 PM, Aaron1 wrote:
>
&
aside from proper RT import/export...
Auto export to get multiple vrfs taking on some PE ?
Aaron
> On Dec 19, 2018, at 12:57 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
>
> I have no trouble with dhcp relay between VRFs across MPLS PE routers,
> but across VRFs on the same router, the relay daemon fud fails.
>
Geez, sounds horrible , thanks Adam
We are buying QFX-5120’s for our new DC build. How good is the MPLS services
capability of the QFX-5120?
Aaron
On Nov 16, 2018, at 5:12 AM,
wrote:
>> Of Aaron1
>> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 4:23 PM
>>
>> Well, I’m a
a
loop
However, I’m beginning to think that EVPN may take care of all that stuff,
again, still learning some of the stuff that data centers due
Aaron
> On Nov 15, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 07:31:30AM -0600, Aaron1 wrote:
&
> But if you've designed for interconnecting your spines, what do you for
> interconnecting 4x spines? What about if you reach 6x spines? Again: the
> model is that resilience is achieved at the leaf:spine interconnectivity
> rather than at the "top of the tree" as you wo
Hmmm, I just recently turned on inline jflow on my mpc7e-mrate in a MX960, and
I don’t think I did anything with a license.
Aaron
> On Nov 7, 2018, at 3:49 PM, Alex D. wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> i would like to use inline J-Flow on MX480 routers with a mix of MPC2E-NG and
> MPC7E-MRATE. I found the
This is a timely topic for me as I just got off a con-call yesterday with my
Juniper SE and an SP specialist...
They also recommended EVPN as the way ahead in place of things like fusion.
They even somewhat shy away from MC-lag
This was all while talking about a data center redesign that we ar
Last year I tried to set mtu to 16000 between (2) MX960’s that were connected
with DWDM ciena... I was dropping packets and found out that the ciena DWDM had
a mtu limit. I set my mx960’s to something around 9200 and was ok then
Not sure what your problem is but thought I would share that DWDM
Yes Niall, lets stay in touch.
Thanks Tom, I’ll have to look at Panoptes
Aaron
> On Oct 11, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
> Related, my company open sourced a tool we've been working on for network
> telemetry at NANOG in Vancouver. I'm 95% sure that a JTI receiver is
> functional o
g post on
> j-nsp.
> Why should I push and pop on R03 ? See that QinQ (so adding second dot1q tag)
> is done on catalyst switch.
>
>> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 3:07 PM Aaron1 wrote:
>> And if that doesn’t work, you might need to push and pop on the R03 side...
>>
And if that doesn’t work, you might need to push and pop on the R03 side...
...also, is customer sending you 300 tagged frames on r01? If not then I don’t
think you should tag and push and pop there on r01 Uni port
Aaron
> On Oct 6, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Aaron1 wrote:
>
> At least fi
At least fix this on r03...
interface xe-0/0/0.300
Should be ...
interface xe-0/0/1.300
Aaron
> On Oct 6, 2018, at 2:19 AM, Robert Hass wrote:
>
> interface xe-0/0/0.300
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net
I think Grafana is also capable of receiving this Telemetry info
Maybe someone else can share how to make that work
I’m also wanting to use JTI in ACX, And wondering if that capability is coming
soon
https://grafana.com/
https://github.com/brunorijsman/juniper-grafana
Aaron
> On Sep 28, 2
46 matches
Mail list logo