On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Eugeniu Patrascu eu...@imacandi.net wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Tom Storey t...@snnap.net wrote:
FWIW the situation I am picturing would not require NAT or IPSEC or
other services like that, just packet shifting with ACLs, some routing
protocols
You need to use selective packet mode, not full packet mode to use ipsec.
On Feb 16, 2014 12:36 PM, Michel de Nostredame d.nos...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Eugeniu Patrascu eu...@imacandi.net
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Tom Storey t...@snnap.net wrote:
On Friday, December 20, 2013 11:52:37 AM sth...@nethelp.no
wrote:
I have a few J series boxes in the lab running 9.3R3.8
which is the last pure packet JunOS release before
Juniper made the big switch. I have never wanted
firewall functionality on my J series boxes. I had some
hopes that
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Tom Storey t...@snnap.net wrote:
Yeah I did see this, but Im looking to avoid flow mode on the whole.
On a J4350 with 2GB of RAM in packet mode I am able to push around 1Gbps
Enterprise IMIX traffic with 4 full routing tables for IPv4 and full
routing (~17K
The successor for the J series is the ACX series but you need to skip the
lower end models as for some weird reason they come with E1 interfaces
stuck on them.
Where did you hear this? The ACX is purpose-built for mobile backhaul and
lacks many features that both the J-Series and SRX have
The successor for the J series is the ACX series but you need to skip the
lower end models as for some weird reason they come with E1 interfaces
stuck on them.
Um, why do you believe the ACX is the successor for the J series? The
ACX is a hardware forwarding box. The J series is software
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:20 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
The successor for the J series is the ACX series but you need to skip the
lower end models as for some weird reason they come with E1 interfaces
stuck on them.
Um, why do you believe the ACX is the successor for the J series? The
Hi everyone.
Whats the general consensus about using a J series entirely in packet mode?
Are there any gotchyas to be wary of, like missing features,
performance hit? It looks like you can configure 3 address families
for packet mode (iso, inet6, mpls) but not inet4. But, from what Im
reading,
On 19/12/13 14:25, Tom Storey wrote:
Hi everyone.
Whats the general consensus about using a J series entirely in packet
mode?
We do it with no problems on both J-series and branch SRX (210H, FWIW).
Some people are annoyed about the amount of RAM consumed (wasted) by
starting the flow
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Tom Storey t...@snnap.net wrote:
Hi everyone.
Whats the general consensus about using a J series entirely in packet mode?
When you enable packet-mode on J-Series you loose the stateful firewall
capabilities.
Are there any gotchyas to be wary of, like
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 02:25:05PM +, Tom Storey wrote:
Whats the general consensus about using a J series entirely in packet mode?
Are there any gotchyas to be wary of, like missing features,
performance hit? It looks like you can configure 3 address families
for packet mode (iso,
On 19 December 2013 14:39, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
performance hit? It looks like you can configure 3 address families
for packet mode (iso, inet6, mpls) but not inet4. But, from what Im
reading, enabling MPLS packet mode forces the whole box in to packet
mode, including
Excellent. Seems the prospects are good then. :-)
No new purchases.
On 19 December 2013 14:25, Tom Storey t...@snnap.net wrote:
Hi everyone.
Whats the general consensus about using a J series entirely in packet mode?
Are there any gotchyas to be wary of, like missing features,
performance
On 19/12/13 15:06, Tom Storey wrote:
On 19 December 2013 14:39, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
performance hit? It looks like you can configure 3 address families
for packet mode (iso, inet6, mpls) but not inet4. But, from what Im
reading, enabling MPLS packet mode forces the whole
Hi Tom,
We’re using J-series in packet mode without any problems.
Enabling packet mode for MPLS will indeed put IPv4 traffic into packet mode as
well.
IPv4, IPv6, ISO and MPLS families all seem to work fine for us in JUNOS 11.4.
Edward Dore
Freethought Internet
On 19 Dec 2013, at 14:25,
@puck.nether.net');
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J series packet mode
On 19/12/13 15:06, Tom Storey wrote:
On 19 December 2013 14:39, Phil Mayers
p.may...@imperial.ac.ukjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'p.may...@imperial.ac.uk');
wrote:
performance hit? It looks like you can configure 3 address families
',
'p.may...@imperial.ac.uk');
Date: 19/12/2013 6:09 PM (GMT+03:00)
To: Tom Storey t...@snnap.net javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
't...@snnap.net');
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net');
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J series packet mode
On 19/12/13
'); javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net');');
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J series packet mode
On 19/12/13 15:06, Tom Storey wrote:
On 19 December 2013 14:39, Phil Mayers
p.may...@imperial.ac.ukjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml
18 matches
Mail list logo
