That does look bad.
Please keep us updated on you case progress if possible.
Thank you.
Best,
Dragan
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Luis Balbinot
wrote:
> Case is open, but nothing yet. Could be related to PR1164101, but that's
> not Juniper's official position.
>
> Next week we are upgradin
Case is open, but nothing yet. Could be related to PR1164101, but that's
not Juniper's official position.
Next week we are upgrading a lab MX480 to 16.2 and see if it persists.
Luis
On Oct 21, 2016 14:54, "Dragan Jovicic" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do you have any update on this? Have you opened a case
Hi,
Do you have any update on this? Have you opened a case for this maybe?
Best
Dragan
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Luis Balbinot
wrote:
> Hey.
>
> Is anyone else having issues with load-balancing on 15.1R4? I'm
> getting these FPC errors in multiple boxes:
>
> fpc0 LUCHIP(3) RMC 2 Uninit
Hey.
Is anyone else having issues with load-balancing on 15.1R4? I'm
getting these FPC errors in multiple boxes:
fpc0 LUCHIP(3) RMC 2 Uninitialized EDMEM[0x3ce333] Read (0x6db6db6d6db6db6d)
fpc0 LUCHIP(3) PPE_2 Errors sync xtxn error
fpc0 LUCHIP(3) PPE_15 Errors sync xtxn error
fpc0 PPE Sync XTX
Title: Re: [j-nsp] Load Balancing on 2x MSPIC 100 for NAT
Very nice trick:)
Even found on juniper-nsp
http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/2006-February/006094.html
Thanks guys!
Peter
5) Create the service-filters:
set firewall family inet service-filter SS_PART1_FILTER term
Title: Re: [j-nsp] Load Balancing on 2x MSPIC 100 for NAT
The config that Artur proposed works great on M10i/M7i with 2xMSPIC + 1x ADV II PIC, without any problems or licenses.
Peter Okupski
--
Best regards,
Pajlatek mailto:pajla...@widzew.net
Hi
Juniper has introduced a load balancing functionality on the MX router.
The load balancer runs on the MS-DPC.
https://developer.juniper.net/content/jdn/en/marketplace/discover/applic
ation-gallery/juniper-applications/RADWAREADC.html
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/software
> 5) Create the service-filters:
>
> set firewall family inet service-filter SS_PART1_FILTER term part1 from
> source-
> address 10.100.0.0/17
> set firewall family inet service-filter SS_PART1_FILTER term part1 then
> service
> set firewall family inet service-filter SS_PART1_FILTER term default t
Thank you Artur, to provide me with such a detail description. The
cgn-pic trigger was tested by me(on m10i/m7i) 2 days ago during
upgrade to Junos 11.4 and it gave us some more juice from the card we are
using now, thus giving us
time to test new config.
The LB config from the offic
On Thursday 12 of January 2012 21:50:14 Pajlatek wrote:
> Hi
> I am searching for any one that is using more than 1 MSPIC 100 in M-
> routers (M10i or M7i) and does a load-balance between them to get the
> additional thruoutput over 1Gb/s
>
I'm not sure if it's going to work on M10i/M7i but it
Hi
I am searching for any one that is using more than 1 MSPIC 100 in M-
routers (M10i or M7i) and does a load-balance between them to get the
additional thruoutput over 1Gb/s
I recived some config from last PDF - Carrier Grade Nat (juniper 2011)
but it seems it missing few details and is not wo
Hi Experts
We had multiple OC3 links attached to a M320, we are trying to perform load
balance of MPLS, L2VPN, L3VPN and IP, but the load balance of MPLS Traffic does
not work, because always takes one link for traffic distribuition.
Anybody has performed this kind of load balance.
There i
Hello,
I have tried for the last 3 years to push all vendors to implement
something like this:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-00
But they never find a Bussiness Case to deploy it.
It good be great to have a smart route reflector that sends the best NH to
eac
On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 09:51:43 PM P.Narayana Swamy
wrote:
> It seems "add-path" feature comes with hidden cli :)
Typically, this would mean it's not a supported feature :-).
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
the total # of
next-hops for the same prefix.
Hope this helps
Thanks and regards,
Swamy
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:36:35 +0800
From: Mark Tinka
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] load balancing in Route reflector scenario
Message-ID: <201108301
On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 08:18:26 AM Ben Dale wrote:
> Looks like add-path is now available Junos 11.3
Cool.
The reasons to move to 11.x are piling, but we'll remain
cautious for now.
Thanks, Dale.
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Looks like add-path is now available Junos 11.3
Cheers,
Ben
On 30/08/2011, at 8:36 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Thursday, August 11, 2011 04:02:13 AM Zaid Hammoudi
> wrote:
>
>> Keegan,
>>
>> Look into add-path, something that is not supported in
>> JUNOS yet, but will be sometime this year.
>
On Thursday, August 11, 2011 04:02:13 AM Zaid Hammoudi
wrote:
> Keegan,
>
> Look into add-path, something that is not supported in
> JUNOS yet, but will be sometime this year.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-walton-bgp-add-paths-06
>
>
> http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentation
above is incorrect. This is the intended use of the knob.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:29 PM
> To: Harry Reynolds
> Cc: Keegan Holley; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
1 11:29 PM
To: Harry Reynolds
Cc: Keegan Holley; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] load balancing in Route reflector scenario
Hi Harry,
> default, differences in route preference cause a JUNI to prefer an > IGP
> route while ios prefer the bgp routs over IGP.
Let'
Hi Keegan,
Nope ... there can be other "producers" of the same route (OSPF,
ISIS, STATIC) which will be in the RIB. If not there is always next
step - less specific route to be used.
I suppose there's a use for this or the feature wouldn't exist, but why
would you have a route in th
S Level 1 internal route 15 . . .
BGP 170
HTHS.
-Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Keegan
Holley Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 2:48 PM To:
rob...@raszuk.net Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re
2011/8/10 Robert Raszuk
> Hi Keegan,
>
>
> By default Junos and IOS-XR advertise only those best path in BGP
>>which actually are installed into forwarding. Advertising inactive
>>knob will overwrite it.
>>
>> Wouldn't this lead to traffic being blackholed? If all the routes for a
>>
uniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] load balancing in Route reflector scenario
2011/8/10 Robert Raszuk
> Hi Keegan,
>
>
> I think the advertise inactive knob turns that off, but I don't know
> for
>> sure because I've never tried it. I know it's not s
I'd consider preceding certain route ranges across the links. Prefer a range of
routes on each link. Depending how you write your filters, you'll be able to
tune things a bit as well as keep redundancy. The return path can be more
difficult, but I find that as prepends or more specific route adv
Hi Keegan,
By default Junos and IOS-XR advertise only those best path in BGP
which actually are installed into forwarding. Advertising inactive
knob will overwrite it.
Wouldn't this lead to traffic being blackholed? If all the routes for a
given destination are inactive would this
2011/8/10 Robert Raszuk
> Hi Keegan,
>
>
> I think the advertise inactive knob turns that off, but I don't know for
>> sure because I've never tried it. I know it's not supported on cisco
>> routers. The reason for it is the size of the BGP table. So if the table
>> is 400k routes and you hav
Hi Keegan,
I think the advertise inactive knob turns that off, but I don't know for
sure because I've never tried it. I know it's not supported on cisco
routers. The reason for it is the size of the BGP table. So if the table
is 400k routes and you have 5 different ISP's and you advertise eve
I think the advertise inactive knob turns that off, but I don't know for
sure because I've never tried it. I know it's not supported on cisco
routers. The reason for it is the size of the BGP table. So if the table
is 400k routes and you have 5 different ISP's and you advertise every route
that
Hi Keegan,
I thought advertise inactive just configured the routers to advertise the
entire BGP RIB instead of only advertising the routes in the routing-table.
Nope. BGP advertises by default single best path. Any subsequent
advertisement will be an implicit withdraw.
Hi Humair,
Per RR di
2011/8/10 Humair Ali
> just to clarify ,
>
> you have :
>
> PE2 with 2 link , 1 to RR1 (let's call it link 1) and 1 to RR2 (link 2)
> PE3 with 2 link , 1 to RR1 (let's call it Link 3) and 1 to RR2 (link4)
>
> you could set local pref to link to PE2 to 150 (RR1 to PE2 will be
> preferred), and l
Hello,
On this link http://goo.gl/6FgnZ from Cisco site you can find the
below quote:
"Route Reflector Limitation
When multiple iBGP paths installed in a routing table, a route reflector
will advertise only one paths (next hop). If a router is behind a route
reflector, all routers that are conne
I thought advertise inactive just configured the routers to advertise the
entire BGP RIB instead of only advertising the routes in the routing-table.
How would you configure multipathing once the routes were there?
2011/8/10 Stefan Fouant
> Have you tried the advertise-inactive knob on the RR?
just to clarify ,
you have :
PE2 with 2 link , 1 to RR1 (let's call it link 1) and 1 to RR2 (link 2)
PE3 with 2 link , 1 to RR1 (let's call it Link 3) and 1 to RR2 (link4)
you could set local pref to link to PE2 to 150 (RR1 to PE2 will be
preferred), and link 2 (PE2 to RR2) as standard 100
the
Have you tried the advertise-inactive knob on the RR? I can't guarantee that
this will work but it just might also advertise the route towards PE3 as well.
Of course, if this works, then you would need to enable multipathing on PE1
accordingly.
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-M, JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI
T
Keegan,
Look into add-path, something that is not supported in JUNOS yet, but will
be sometime this year.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-walton-bgp-add-paths-06
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentations/Tuesday/Ward_AddPath_N48.pdf
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/whitepaper
Not sure if others will have a better answer, but I don't think this is
possible. As far as I know BGP doesn't support multi-pathing so there isn't
a way to have two next hops used for the same prefix. You might be able to
peer with a loopback address and use your IGP to create equal cost routes
Dear All
I have a setup where I need to load balancing routes received from 2 RR in
IPV4 environment (not VPN-IPV4)
I have my PE (let's called PE1) connected to 2 RR (cluster), my destination
subnet eg: 10.1.1.1/24 is behind 2 PE (PE-2 and PE3) which are also client
of the same 2RR
PE-2 and PE3
riday, March 18, 2011 11:11 PM
To: Doug Hanks; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Load balancing using Ethernet Aggregate interface ae0
Already I have one aggregate and connected to two different switches one
primary and one backup
ge-0/0/0 { to S
gigether-options {
802.3ad {
ae0;
backup;
}
}
}
-Original Message-
From: Doug Hanks [mailto:dha...@juniper.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 8:57 AM
To: medrees; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Load balancing using Ethernet
As stated before, you can't have an aggregate interface going to two individual
switches.
-Original Message-
From: medrees [mailto:medr...@isu.net.sa]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 10:36 PM
To: Doug Hanks; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Load balancing using Eth
medrees
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11:02 AM
To: 'Doug Hanks'; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Load balancing using Ethernet Aggregate interface ae0
Thanks Doug a lot.
-Original Message-
From: Doug Hanks [mailto:dha...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Thanks Doug a lot.
-Original Message-
From: Doug Hanks [mailto:dha...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:35 AM
To: medrees; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Load balancing using Ethernet Aggregate interface ae0
Is the Cisco switch you're connecting to a
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:31 PM, medrees wrote:
> Hi Doug
>
> Thanks for your reply, my question is that "is it possible to make
> aggregation in two links from juniper side and the other side is connected
> to two different Layer-2 Cisco switches for load balance?" currently I'm
> connected th
27;m
connected this setup but one physical interface as primary and the other as
backup inside the ae0.
-Original Message-
From: Doug Hanks [mailto:dha...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:17 AM
To: medrees; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Load balancing
primary and the other as
backup inside the ae0.
-Original Message-
From: Doug Hanks [mailto:dha...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:17 AM
To: medrees; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Load balancing using Ethernet Aggregate interface ae0
If I understand your que
t] On Behalf Of medrees
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:06 PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] Load balancing using Ethernet Aggregate interface ae0
Hi Expertise
I'm going to create new Aggregate Ethernet for M10i router to load
balance the traffic among these interf
Hi Expertise
Im going to create new Aggregate Ethernet for M10i router to load
balance the traffic among these interfaces and I know that juniper router
can do this aggregation even if the remote side is connected to two
different devices, so in this case I wont deploy LACP and will use
Gentlefolk,
it is a long time I had to think or worry about this kind of thing.
I am familiar with l2circuits, and the fact that engineering them is
a bit painful I clearly remember. I also know 'protocol connections'
and like that approach as well as you need the added control sometimes.
I am c
.net] On Behalf Of Hoogen
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:06 PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; Juniper certification
Subject: [j-nsp] Load Balancing in BGP...
Hi All,
I have a question in BGP case study.. for JNCIP topology when we use
multipath options in most case studies.. It does show
Hi All,
I have a question in BGP case study.. for JNCIP topology when we use
multipath options in most case studies.. It does show two next-hops.. But I
believe we still need load balance on the forwarding option so as to load
balance traffic.. But most of the case studies do not include them as a
Hi All,
Kind of silly but I am not able to figure this out.. So any help
Appreciated..
I am trying to ping 172.16.1.254.. which works if I remove the load balance
policy but doesn't if I apply it..
-Hoogen
regr...@shiraz> show configuration interfaces
ge-0/0/1 {
vlan-tagging;
unit 40 {
On Tuesday 18 November 2008 06:37:36 luis barrios wrote:
> I have configure VRFs and in the route table of each VRF
> i see the routes with the 3 LSPs, but i dont know why the
> traffic is taking allmost only one E1s
Have you tried this:
forwarding-options {
hash-key {
family mpls {
Luis,
More info on the fields used in the hash calculation:
http://tinyurl.com/5tf5xl
And knobs that can be used to influence whats used in the hash
calculation:
http://tinyurl.com/56xbto (hardware dependent).
-Ariff
On Nov 17, 2008, at 3:00 PM, luis barrios wrote:
Thanks for your answer
Thanks for your answer...
The P router is M10i ( 8.2 R2.4) , the PE router is m7i ( 7.3R1.5)Im working
with real traffic and there are a lot of application using the links. And
the behavior of the hash mechanism could be the reason of what im seeing ..
do you know how can i test change the behavio
Luis,
A couple of questions.
1. What is the hw platform?
2. Is there enough variance in the traffic itself? The reason being
that the algorithm is based on a hash mechanism that ensures that
packets belonging to the same flow always ride the same path. So if
there isnt enough variance in
Hello .. I have a PE router conected to a P router with E1s interfaces. I
built 3 LSPs and each LSP with the respective path, each Path is taking one
E1. Actually when i see the routing table i see that the routes has 3
posible next hops and they are the 3 LSPs .I have configured in the
rout
]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Load balancing: hash algorithm
> Importance: High
>
>
> > The hash algorithm uses the source IP address, the
> destination IP address, the Protocol field an
re a way to know the next-hop used for an individual flow (if I have an
Internet Processor II ASIC)?
Samuel
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : jeudi 17 juillet 2008 10:55
À : Gay,S,Samuel,JPECS R; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Objet : RE: [j-
--Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : jeudi 17 juillet 2008 10:55
À : Gay,S,Samuel,JPECS R; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Objet : RE: [j-nsp] Load balancing: hash algorithm
Hi,
The hash algorithm uses the source IP address, the destination I
nvoyé : jeudi 17 juillet 2008 10:46
À : juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Objet : [j-nsp] Load balancing: hash algorithm
Hi Group,
Do you know how work hash algorithm used in load balancing (only layer-3)? Is
there some documentation about it?
Thanks,
S
Hi Group,
Do you know how work hash algorithm used in load balancing (only
layer-3)? Is there some documentation about it?
Thanks,
Samuel
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi all,
Do you know more information regarding the load balancing algorithm used
for ECMP (in the forwarding table - load balance per packet) or for
aggregate ethernet links ?
Regards,
David
*
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential
Whoot! You guys are awesome!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] run show route forwarding-table destination
2001:xxx:dead:beef::/48
Routing table: inet6
Internet6:
DestinationType RtRef Next hop Type Index NhRef Netif
2001:xxx:dead:beef::/48 user 0ulst 1048589 4
On May 20, 2008, at 9:57 PM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
> I'm wondering if anyone else has seen any similar problems and are
> there any gotchya's when configuring load-balancing for IPv6 traffic.
you cannot match on family inet and inet6 in one term, 8.5 returns the
following error:
[edit policy-op
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:juniper-nsp-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefan Fouant
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:57 PM
> To: Juniper-Nsp
> Subject: [j-nsp] Load Balancing IPv6 Traffic Flows
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Has anyone on t
Hi folks,
Has anyone on the list experienced any issues when attempting to
load-balance IPv6 traffic flows?
Whenever I attempt to commit my configuration to load-balance traffic
flows, whether I am using a route-filter or a prefix-list-filter to
match on IPv6 routes, as in the following:
routing
Hi Folks,
I want to load balance multiple GRE tunnels over a number of circuits
between a couple of routers. Since the routers will load balance
per-flow and not per-packet, will the routers be able to distinguish
between the tunnels ?
The problem is that the tunnels will all be between the same
> Agreed, however, with the load-balancing export mentioned
> earlier, JunOS does per-flow balancing, hence, any particular
> session (such as a VoIP call and a stream of UDP packets)
> will always use the same path; thus they will still arrive in
> the same order at the destination router. =)
hm.
Good catch.!
- Chris.
-Original Message-
From: Paul Goyette
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 11:29 AM
To: Chris Kawchuk; 'Hamid Ahmed'; 'Andy Lamontagne'
Cc: 'juniper-nsp'
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] load balancing between juniper routers for
unequalcostpath
&g
> As both Chuck and Leigh have stated, you CAN use GRE tunnels
> to do this, however, you will run into MTU size issues by
> doing this. You will also need tunneling/Adaptive
> Services/MultiServices PICs (or ASM cards if it's an M7i were
> dealing with) to do gre tunneling.
>
> The far "clean
EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hamid Ahmed
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 7:47 AM
To: Andy Lamontagne
Cc: juniper-nsp
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] load balancing between juniper routers for unequal costpath
hi Andy,
Thanks for the detailed email. However i could get a better understan
hi Andy,
Thanks for the detailed email. However i could get a better understanding if u
can send me configuration snapshot. My intended traffic will use MPLS in the
future but for time being i need to know if i can deploy GRE tunnels to
compensate for OSPF unequal cost paths and then try load-ba
Also with GRE tunnels you may run into MTU problems. At last with MPLS
you won't have that pro
Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 08:39:23AM -0800, Hamid Ahmed wrote:
>
>
>> 2) You are giving the explanation for equal cost paths. However in
>> my case there are two unequal co
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 08:39:23AM -0800, Hamid Ahmed wrote:
> 2) You are giving the explanation for equal cost paths. However in
> my case there are two unequal cost paths. So my question still how
> can u do that in using unequal cost paths ?
> 3) Please explain when u say the followi
Hi Hamid,
To control (or engineer) where you want traffic to go, you simply introduce
MPLS LSPs. The beauty of MPLS is its *Traffic
Engineering*characteristics. You can decide EXACTLY where you want
your traffic to go.
So, if you have 2 unequal paths, and you wish to load-balance between the 2,
Hi Andy,
Thanks for your reply.
1) Can u send me a sample configuration of what u are saying with a brief
explanation of your scenario?
2) You are giving the explanation for equal cost paths. However in my case
there are two unequal cost paths. So my question still how can u do that in
us
Hi Hamid,
To expand on Chris's explanation, ECMP is Equal Cost Multi-Path, which
allows for the use of 2 (or more) equal cost path at the same time; Load
balancing the traffic between the different paths. As Chris also mentioned,
this load balancing is done per flow and not per packet, so you don'
Hi,
Its LAyer 3 load balancing. The traffic intended for load-balancing does is
on pure IP with OSPF running and having unequal cost paths
regards,
Salman.
GAY Samuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Which kind of load balancing do you want to do ? layer 3 ? layer 4 ?
Are you on a MPLS
CTED])
Systems Engineering, Service Providers
Juniper Networks Inc., Canada
local: +1 (403) 470-8174
toll-free: +1 (866) 470-8174
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hamid Ahmed
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:25 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.
Hi,
Which kind of load balancing do you want to do ? layer 3 ? layer 4 ?
Are you on a MPLS network ?
Regards,
Samuel
Hamid Ahmed a écrit :
> Hi Everyone,
>
> CAn anyone suggest me how to load balancing between juniper routers for
> unequal cost paths.
>
> BR//
> HA
>
> ___
toll-free: +1 (866) 470-8174
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hamid Ahmed
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:25 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] load balancing between juniper routers for unequal cost
path
Hi Everyone,
Hi Everyone,
CAn anyone suggest me how to load balancing between juniper routers for unequal
cost paths.
BR//
HA
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
___
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I'd say um summary that trying to load-balance multiple full BGP transit
connections is a pain in the ass and really best avoided unless it's
some simple prepend work either by prepending entire peers or using
their BGP community toys to prepend i
From: Jesper Skriver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> So in short, using 'no-export' is HIGHLY dangerous, and
> should be used with great care - in fact I would strongly
> recommend not to use it.
This is an excellent point. I've been seeing more and
more evidence lately (the latest bit being this t
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:03:16PM +0100, Erdem Sener wrote:
> a little remark:
>
> adding 'no-export' community to your advertised routes to ISP #x will
> guarantee that ISP #x won't advertise these prefixes to any of its
> ebgp peer, meaning "his peers won't use ISP #x to get to you".
It also m
a little remark:
adding 'no-export' community to your advertised routes to ISP #x will
guarantee that ISP #x won't advertise these prefixes to any of its
ebgp peer, meaning "his peers won't use ISP #x to get to you".
On the other hand, this doesn't mean that ISP #x will certainly use
its direct l
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:28:20PM +0200, Tim Nagy wrote:
> You'd like to send and receive all traffic on the links to ISP #1 except for
> traffic that terminates in ISPs #2, #3, #10, or #20. Is that correct?
>
> For inbound, things are more complicated. The only way that you can really
> influen
iving from you.
There may be other ways of doing what you want, but this is what immediately
comes to mind for me.
Regards,
Tim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Loopback
Sent: 14 March 2007 5:23 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subj
All
We would appreciate some ideas for the best method of implementing limited
traffic engineering via BGP for our current network. We have two EBGP
routers in the same physical location with and IBGP connection between them,
each are dual homed to 3 Tier 1 ISP's and single homed to one other I
AIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:36 AM
Subject: [j-nsp] Load Balancing Between 2 STM Links
> Hi guys ! I hve two STM-1 wid two different ISPs, now what i want to do is
> to use both links equally. I m running BGP wid both ISP currently my
> router
> is s
Hi guys ! I hve two STM-1 wid two different ISPs, now what i want to do is
to use both links equally. I m running BGP wid both ISP currently my router
is selecting best routes through BGP for outgoing and incoming traffic.
Regards !
___
juniper-nsp mail
92 matches
Mail list logo
