On (2012-12-21 16:57 -0900), Christopher E. Brown wrote:
In all cases, set to network-services ip or network-services enhanced-ip
(with a
reboot between to actually switch) I always see a single filter and policer
set shared
across multiple instances.
Weird. In my case JTAC confirmed that
Well, I just re-tested this in
10.4R9
10.4R10
10.4R11
10.4R12
11.4R6
On MX960 RE2000/MPC2 and MX80
In all cases, set to network-services ip or network-services enhanced-ip
(with a
reboot between to actually switch) I always see a single filter and policer set
shared
across multiple
Folks:
When Trio MPCs were released, original behavior pertaining to policer
behavior on VPLS instances was different from that observed on I-CHIP DPCs
(as has been uncovered in this thread). This was changed via PR/674408,
which should now be externally viewable. It changes the default Trio
On (2012-11-14 12:19 -0500), Addy Mathur wrote:
When Trio MPCs were released, original behavior pertaining to policer
behavior on VPLS instances was different from that observed on I-CHIP DPCs
(as has been uncovered in this thread). This was changed via PR/674408,
which should now be
Except I am running network-services ip not enhanced-ip, and 10.4R10 now
R11 (PR lists R9 as fixed) and am seeing shared policers.
On 11/14/12 8:19 AM, Addy Mathur wrote:
Folks:
When Trio MPCs were released, original behavior pertaining to policer
behavior on VPLS instances was different
Please share case #, I have same complaints in discussion with our SE
and up that chain.
Personally I think they need to add instance-specific as a keyword to
the policer to make them shared or not-shared by choice. 95% of the
time I need unshared, but can think of a few cases where shared
In my mind, the default is fine. It is consistent with normal behavior
and there are times when a shared policer would be desired. The lack of
a instance specific option though, that is stupid beyond belief,
shocking surprise.
To me the biggest problem is, you cannot know if instance
On (2012-11-05 10:44 +0100), Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
And there I'm missing a instance-specific knob. The only reference I
find to instance-specific is this:
| To enable this higher precedence on BPDU packets, an instance-specific
| BPDU precedence filter named default_bpdu_filter is
And I have tested and seen exactly the opposite with 10.4R10 in both
MX80 and all trio MX960.
Create a policer and a vpls filter that matches unknown ucast, bcast and
mcast.
Apply to VPLS forwarding table in 2 instances
...
Two filter instances, but one shared policer.
On 11/6/12 12:00 AM,
* Christopher E. Brown chris.br...@acsalaska.net [2012-11-06 10:41]:
And I have tested and seen exactly the opposite with 10.4R10 in both
MX80 and all trio MX960.
Create a policer and a vpls filter that matches unknown ucast, bcast and
mcast.
Apply to VPLS forwarding table in 2
On (2012-11-06 00:35 -0900), Christopher E. Brown wrote:
And I have tested and seen exactly the opposite with 10.4R10 in both
MX80 and all trio MX960.
So chances are, in 10.4 instances policers are shared and 11.4 not shared.
This is kind wacky if behaviour has been changed like that. As
On (2012-11-06 13:43 +0100), Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
Just to be sure, could you try to use the interface-specific keyword
for your filter?
You should have tried that, it won't commit. It was first thing I tried
when testing VPLS.
I wonder if someone can clear this up. I think shared
* Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi [2012-11-06 14:27]:
Just to be sure, could you try to use the interface-specific keyword
for your filter?
You should have tried that, it won't commit. It was first thing I tried
when testing VPLS.
Yeah, you're right. I remembered that it didn't matter but I was
On (2012-11-06 14:41 +0100), Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
Yes, cleary unshared. Btw: what traffic generator is that? Spirent?
Agilent, but it was bought few years ago by Ixia, so marketing peeps would
say Ixia. But Ixia and Agilent have completely different software.
I'm considering opening a
On 11/6/12 3:43 AM, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Christopher E. Brown chris.br...@acsalaska.net [2012-11-06 10:41]:
And I have tested and seen exactly the opposite with 10.4R10 in both
MX80 and all trio MX960.
Create a policer and a vpls filter that matches unknown ucast, bcast and
mcast.
On (2012-11-06 09:19 -0900), Christopher E. Brown wrote:
In my mind, the default is fine. It is consistent with normal behavior
and there are times when a shared policer would be desired. The lack of
a instance specific option though, that is stupid beyond belief,
shocking surprise.
To me
Hello,
is there a knob so that I can get instance-specific forwarding filters
for the BUM/flood filter option in VPLS instances? I want to define
one filter and apply it via apply-group but I need to generate
separate filters for every instance it is applied to.
I can't find documentation that
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.4/topics/usage-guidelines/vpns-configuring-firewall-filters-and-policers-for-vpls.html
[edit routing-instances routing-instance-name forwarding-options family vpls]
filter input input-filter-name;
is there a knob so that I can get instance-specific
* Per Granath per.gran...@gcc.com.cy [2012-11-05 10:33]:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.4/topics/usage-guidelines/vpns-configuring-firewall-filters-and-policers-for-vpls.html
[edit routing-instances routing-instance-name forwarding-options family vpls]
filter input
19 matches
Mail list logo
