Hello. Thanks for all the stories from everyone.
I disabled some pretty nasty (lots of port matches) terms and the issue
went away for a few weeks.
I've just edited this term, by adding an IP to the destination-prefix-list:
[edit firewall family ethernet-switching filter ci_infra]
- term
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 09:49:02PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen
r...@e-gerbil.net wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:51:26AM +0800, Gavin Tweedie wrote:
I also have a case open with JTAC.
For
example, if you configured a single term to match on 0.0.0.0/8,
1.0.0.0/8, or 3.0.0.0/8,
(ex-platform causes death/dismemberment/pain/anguish)
On 12/15/10 09:18, Charlie Allom wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 09:49:02PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen
r...@e-gerbil.net wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:51:26AM +0800, Gavin Tweedie wrote:
I also have a case open with JTAC.
For
Hi,
FYI splitting it up into _udp and _tcp only spiked the pfem for seconds,
rather than 2 hours like this time (below).
Thanks again for all the info.
C.
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 02:16:11PM +, Charlie Allom
char...@playlouder.com wrote:
Hello. Thanks for all the stories from everyone.
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:00:10AM -0500, Chris Morrow morr...@ops-netman.net
wrote:
(ex-platform causes death/dismemberment/pain/anguish)
On 12/15/10 09:18, Charlie Allom wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 09:49:02PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen
r...@e-gerbil.net wrote:
Richard how did
On 3/12/2010 6:46 PM, Charlie Allom wrote:
I have tried 10.0R2.10, 10.0S10.1 and 10.0R4.7 - they are all the same.
We only have 165 terms.
We're hitting the exact same issue on a EX4200 with 9.6R3.8, which we're
stuck on because of a bug preventing us from upgrading to Junos10. We
have 256
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:51:26AM +0800, Gavin Tweedie wrote:
We're hitting the exact same issue on a EX4200 with 9.6R3.8, which
we're stuck on because of a bug preventing us from upgrading to
Junos10. We have 256 terms which are matching on source IP without
issue. Once each term is
As Chris mentions it is not the number of terms alone but the ordering
and specify logic sequences are tricker implement.
SW upgrade is almost certainly the ultimate fix here. But as a work
around consider trying to optimize your filter term ordering and if
possible address aggregation in terms
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 08:07:29PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen
r...@e-gerbil.net wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 01:31:59PM +, Charlie Allom wrote:
Dec 2 13:30:08 sw0.cll fpc0 Invalid prev page id 104 and next page id 104
for fw -559038737
Is there a way to know what
Charlie,
We only have 165 terms.
applied in which manner to which ports? Depending on how you do this
there could be a multiplication issue, we ran into issues with that
(albeit in a 9.4 release IIRC) with even fewer filters.
regards,
Felix
--
Felix Schüren
Head of Network
Felix,
Am 03.12.10 14:39, schrieb Felix Schueren:
We only have 165 terms.
applied in which manner to which ports? Depending on how you do this
there could be a multiplication issue, we ran into issues with that
(albeit in a 9.4 release IIRC) with even fewer filters.
Dynamic allocation of
Hello,
has anyone else seen these messages:
Dec 2 13:29:43 sw0.cll fpc0 Invalid prev page id 101 and next page id 101 for
fw -559038737
Dec 2 13:29:45 sw0.cll fpc2 Invalid prev page id 101 and next page id 101 for
fw -559038737
Dec 2 13:29:50 sw0.cll fpc1 Invalid prev page id 100 and
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 01:31:59PM +, Charlie Allom wrote:
Hello,
has anyone else seen these messages:
Dec 2 13:29:43 sw0.cll fpc0 Invalid prev page id 101 and next page id 101
for fw -559038737
Dec 2 13:29:45 sw0.cll fpc2 Invalid prev page id 101 and next page id 101
for fw
13 matches
Mail list logo
