-Original Message-
From: Tima Maryin [mailto:t...@transtelecom.net]
Sent: Thursday, 12 November, 2009 9:07
To: kszarkow...@gmail.com
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
First of all thanks to all who cares :)
I'll reply one by one
Derick Wink
day, 12 November, 2009 14:34
> To: Krzysztof Szarkowicz
> Cc: 'Tima Maryin'; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 01:45:22PM +0100, Krzysztof Szarkowicz wrote:
>>
>> The most common cause of drop
November, 2009 14:34
To: Krzysztof Szarkowicz
Cc: 'Tima Maryin'; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 01:45:22PM +0100, Krzysztof Szarkowicz wrote:
>
> The most common cause of dropping is mismatch of MPLS MTU, o
Excerpts from sthaug's message of Thu Nov 12 00:12:16 -0800 2009:
> Absolutely. We use quite a bit of dual tagging on Ethernet, so then we
> need to crank it up to 4492. But all our backbone links are 4484 on the
> Juniper side.
Is there a reason not to use 9000-bytes everywhere (accounting for
br
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 01:45:22PM +0100, Krzysztof Szarkowicz wrote:
>
> The most common cause of dropping is mismatch of MPLS MTU, or L2 device with
> misconfigured MTUs
> somewhere in between.
Are you sur you mean MPLS MTU?
There is only one BGP session between a set of peers, even if you
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
First of all thanks to all who cares :)
I'll reply one by one
Derick Winkworth wrote:
> How about some debugs or traceoptions?
>
>
traceoptions at last Jun says that box dosen't receive bgp notifications some
times. haven&#
Hi do you have a PR Number for this issue?
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tima Maryin
Sent: 11 November 2009 08:28
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
28
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
9.3R4.4 has a nasty bug which occures in setup when you have bgp session
over
chain of few routers/links with ospf/ldp
bgp session occasionally goes down with notification timeout. Even when
there is
no traffic a
> > We have standardized on 4470 byte MTU. This means mtu 4470 on Cisco
> > IOS physical Ethernet interfaces, and MTU 4484 on Juniper JunOS
> > physical Ethernet interfaces. No need to explicitly set IP or CLNS
> > MTU.
>
> Except when you enable VLANs on Ethernet, you need to crank it up to
> 44
l Message-
From: Tima Maryin [mailto:t...@transtelecom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November, 2009 15:12
To: kszarkow...@gmail.com
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
Uhm, i see your point here.
We indeed have cisco - cisco - Jun - Jun setup
My cisco int
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
We have standardized on 4470 byte MTU. This means mtu 4470 on Cisco
IOS physical Ethernet interfaces, and MTU 4484 on Juniper JunOS
physical Ethernet interfaces. No need to explicitly set IP or CLNS
MTU.
Except when you enable VLANs on Ethernet, you
r down?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tima Maryin [mailto:t...@transtelecom.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 11 November, 2009 15:12
>> To: kszarkow...@gmail.com
>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
:43 +0100
> CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
>
> With MTUs around 9000 configured on ALL links in the network there should be
> no problem with BGP,
> since as per RFC4271, section 4:
>
> The maximum message size is 4096 octets
e BGP
session is tear down?
Thanks,
Krzysztof
-Original Message-
From: Tima Maryin [mailto:t...@transtelecom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November, 2009 15:12
To: kszarkow...@gmail.com
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
Uhm, i see your point her
From: Tima Maryin
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:11:56 +0300
> Uhm, i see your point here.
> We indeed have cisco - cisco - Jun - Jun setup
>
>
> My cisco interface mtu = ip mtu = mpls mtu =9000
> But i raly doubt that bgp kee
How about some debugs or traceoptions?
From: Tima Maryin
To: kszarkow...@gmail.com
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wed, November 11, 2009 8:11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
Uhm, i see your point here.
We indeed have cisco
ember, 2009 9:57
To: kszarkow...@gmail.com
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
What did you mean by "inappropriately configured" ?
There are the same mtu settings everywhere and traffic passes quite well.
And ospf session goes up without problems
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
What did you mean by "inappropriately configured" ?
There are the same mtu settings everywhere and traffic passes quite well.
And ospf session goes up without problems.
And how comes that "inappropriately co
009 8:28
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
9.3R4.4 has a nasty bug which occures in setup when you have bgp session over
chain of few routers/links with ospf/ldp
bgp session occasionally goes down with notification timeout. Even when there is
no t
: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
9.3R4.4 has a nasty bug which occures in setup when you have bgp session over
chain of few routers/links with ospf/ldp
bgp session occasionally goes down with notification timeout. Even when there
is
no traffic at
9.3R4.4 has a nasty bug which occures in setup when you have bgp session over
chain of few routers/links with ospf/ldp
bgp session occasionally goes down with notification timeout. Even when there is
no traffic at all and no physical errors
rollback to 9.3r3 helps though
JTAC still not conf
Thank you all for all the information, and thank you Richard for
taking the time to elaborate. We're going to use 9.3R4.4 mainly
because of the E-EOL (and that fact that it has all the features we
need :) ).
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:43 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 03
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 03:39:32PM +0200, Andrei Radu wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> We will be installing our first Juniper MX960 router in the network.
> We were a 100% Cisco shop and this is our first Juniper router. The MX
> will be a P/PE node
> in a pretty standard MPLS backbone network surro
On Friday 06 November 2009 02:28:32 am Derick Winkworth
wrote:
> There are some great new features in 10, if you haven't
> already read the release notes...
I'm particularly loving the 'interface-range' feature, which
should be great for the EX-series.
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Descriptio
Derick Winkworth writes:
>9.3r4 indeed. Perhaps even 9.4r4 when that comes out.
FWIW: 9.5 has a number of scripting-related features, including
interactivity and remote RPC access. We've been working to ensure
that scripting PRs are backported to at least 9.5.
Thanks,
Phil
_
25 matches
Mail list logo
