Re: [j-nsp] Junos BNG PPPoE inside a VPLS

The reason for the VPLS use is that we have multiple BNG nodes that load share the PPPoE sessions. And to mitigate single points of failure. I believe Juniper might just be looking into this scenario as well. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list

[j-nsp] Junos BNG PPPoE inside a VPLS

Gents Theoretical question here: I currently have a setup where I transport PPPoE frames between my xDSL boxes and a centralised BNG. I use one vlan tag per xDSL box aggregator box, so all the subs from a specific box have the same vlan tag. xDSL(vlan tagged Eth)--PE--MPLS

[j-nsp] Bug or Not?

I have had an issue last weekend with an upstream peer of my transit providers. They have had a route stuck in the forwarding table for 2 weeks. The result of this was that they were pointing one of my prefixes to a specific one of my transits, when that transit was down they were black holing

Re: [j-nsp] Redistribution question.

Import policy is from routing-protocol to routing table. Once you get this life is easier :-) William Jackson NGN Engineering Gibtelecom Email: william.jack...@gibtele.com -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net

[j-nsp] ASR9001 vs MX80

Hi Having used the MX80 in a previous position and now being prompted to look at the ASR 9001, I was wondering if any people have operational experience with the ASR9001 platform? Or any thoughts on comparison. These will be used for IPv4/IPv6 eBGP transit and for MPLS L2VPN/VPLS drop offs,

Re: [j-nsp] XFP-10G-L-OC192-SR1

and these each contain 12 fibres, to wire to your fibre interconnect frame. Then when service needs to be turned up don't need to touch the router rack, just at interconnection frame ( where install relevant attenuators ). Worked so far for us and save a lot of messing around. Best Regards William Jackson

Re: [j-nsp] Strange behavior of BGP policy

My punt would be to get rid of the last accept statement. Without it your processing should fall through to the default BGP export policy. At the moment I guess you are accepting everything. Best Regards William Jackson Technical Department Sapphire Networks -Original Message- From

[j-nsp] Strange BGP behaviour on 10.0R3

Hi We are seeing some strange behavior on an MX with 10.0R3. We have an Ethernet link to a switch where we have multiple eBGP peers. We and the peer are seeing the session come up and then expiring with hold-time received messages, other peers on the same segment work 100%. When

[j-nsp] Customer CPE question

Hi We are deploying an access network for L2 Ethernet services using a non juniper manufacturer. This is a product set specifically targeted at these MEF services and is very good and cheap. But is only for L2 services. We have other customers that will only require L3 services. We

[j-nsp] Packet Size Distribution Statistics

Regards William Jackson Technical Department wjack...@sapphire.gi mailto:wjack...@sapphire.gi Sapphire Networks Suite 3.0.3, Eurotowers, P O Box 797, Gibraltar Customer Services * Tel: +350 200 47200 F Fax: +350 200 47272 * E-Mail: enquir...@sapphire.gi mailto:enquir...@sapphire.gi * Web

Re: [j-nsp] Default SRX Behaviour

. Best Regards William Jackson ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Managing MX480 fxp0

What we did as we have different IP ranges that access via the Fxp0 was to NAT on the next-hop router connected to the FXP port. So that all traffic appears to the fxp as if it was directly connected to it. Best Regards William Jackson Technical Department Sapphire Networks -Original

Re: [j-nsp] MX240

I guess one of the big differences for choosing MX240 over MX80 would be the Dual RE capability on the MX240. I have been told by our SE that the MX80 will be able to be clustered like the SRX style cluster in the future. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list

Re: [j-nsp] any guidance on JNCIP-M

Read the book, study hard. Get hands on, will be hard to pass and go further without hands on. I passed this one in Jan 2010. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

[j-nsp] Automating Deployment

Hi all We are wondering how people automate the deployment of juniper customer edge Routers. We were considering using unnumbered Ethernet interfaces on the edge router and on the next upstream nodes so that we do not need to have pre-knowledge of IP addressing. The idea was then to run

Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations

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

Re: [j-nsp] Upstream Traffic Manipulation Question

Maybe I am being too basic, but if both remote POPs are from the same ISP, maybe they have communities you can add to set their localpref? What about MED on BGP? William -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On

[j-nsp] RSVP LSP question

I am wading my way through the JNCIS-M book and cant find a suitable answer to the following question: Imagine I have an MPLS network and I have multiple services running between the same two PE routers I define multiple RSVP-TE LSPs with different primary and backup paths, bandwidth

[j-nsp] MPLS Route Distinguisher Question

Hi guys Can someone clarify something for me: The Route distinguisher is the VPN instance identifier correct? So it is unique per VPN in the network. And the route target/vrf target is a value that you can assign to prefixes when advertised from local PE router to limit which

[j-nsp] MPLS Question

Hi Just dipping my feet into the world of MPLS and have some quick questions. On my ingress router I am setting up some RSVP label paths with strict ERO's, I add the fast reroute option and the adaptive option. So that the primary and secondary paths are already up. On my transit

[j-nsp] LDP FEC Default Behavior

Hi Just been reading a bit and had a quick question. With Junos it states that when you enable LDP protocol it will by default only make a FEC and subsequent label for the /32 loopback.( from JNCIS-M Book, quite old) ( Correct me if im wrong ) What happens with an IOS box? Does it

[j-nsp] generate a default route question

I have a test lab where I have an edge router that I want to use to generate a default route into my OSPF process depending on whether an interface is up or not. Code snippets: Show routing-options: generate { route 0.0.0.0/0 { policy generate_default_route; tag

[j-nsp] Service provider SLA reporting Software

Hi I was wondering what software service providers are using to generate SLA reports. IP transit services and MPLS services? Many thanks ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net