Re: [j-nsp] CGNat PBA - MX104 w/MS-MIC

On 25/Apr/16 23:10, Aaron wrote: > You guys are awesome. PBA is working ! thanks a bunch. I upgraded to > 14.2.R2 like you suggested and it's good now. Quite a number of bugs in 14.2R2. Would rather deploy 14.2R6, which is out now. Mark. ___

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 base model

A Google search for "juniper MX used" and some phone calls to some of the vendors in the top 10 would be a good place to start, if you are not going to buy from an authorized reseller. > On Apr 25, 2016, at 9:13 PM, Satish Patel wrote: > > How much it cost to activate

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 base model

You should really talk to your Juniper partner or sales rep. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Satish Patel wrote: > How much it cost to activate 10G ports on MX104? > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Josh Baird wrote: > > The bundle that I purchased

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 base model

How much it cost to activate 10G ports on MX104? On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Josh Baird wrote: > The bundle that I purchased included S-MX104-ADV-R2, so no extra licensing > for BGP or additional routes was necessary. > > Josh > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Mat

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 base model

Well, if you are happy running it against the licencing terms you don't. If you want to run over 20k routes? They want you to buy the full layer3 license, and under the light one. So it will work, but don't expect support on it. Mat On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Josh Baird

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 base model

No 10G interfaces are unlocked on the base MX104-MX5 bundle. This requires additional licensing. You don't need additional licensing for BGP. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Satish Patel wrote: > I check price on Internet it cost around $44k > > Now I need to check how

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 base model

I check price on Internet it cost around $44k Now I need to check how many ports are open and how many locked in base model because I don't want to pay money because out requirement is just 10g link with BGP support. -- Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 25, 2016, at 7:35 PM, Chris Kawchuk

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 base model

No. On 26 Apr 2016, at 9:34 am, Satish Patel wrote: > Also do I need to pay to run BGP? ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 base model

Does MX104 base model has 10G ports are lock? Also do I need to pay to run BGP? -- Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 25, 2016, at 6:41 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > > Go with a MX104 not a MX80. New a MX104 is less expensive than a MX80. > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:36 PM,

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 base model

Go with a MX104 not a MX80. New a MX104 is less expensive than a MX80. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:20:45PM -0400, Satish Patel wrote: > > I talked to one of vendore he gave me following price for MX80. Does > > MX80 base

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 base model

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:20:45PM -0400, Satish Patel wrote: > I talked to one of vendore he gave me following price for MX80. Does > MX80 base model support 20G throughput? or do i need to buy license to > use more 20G? The MX80 allows 40Gbps throughput (or 80Gbps in Marketing speak). > in

[j-nsp] MX80 base model

I talked to one of vendore he gave me following price for MX80. Does MX80 base model support 20G throughput? or do i need to buy license to use more 20G? in around $17k price. i will get following. Does 4x10GE fix port are locked or i need to unlock them? MX80 Chassis with 2 MIC slot 4x10GE

Re: [j-nsp] CGNat PBA - MX104 w/MS-MIC

You guys are awesome. PBA is working ! thanks a bunch. I upgraded to 14.2.R2 like you suggested and it's good now. BTW, PBA allocations on the non-power-of-two seem to work fine. I went with 1000. After I enabled PBA I still saw a bunch of session open logs, then I figured I probably needed to

Re: [j-nsp] ASR 1001 throughput question

That would be great! if it is for egress i will check with cisco sure. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Duane Grant wrote: > Hi Satish, > > I think that the throughput license for the asr1000 is for egress traffic, > so if you're receiving 7 gb of traffic and and you're

Re: [j-nsp] IP Rate Limit

Hi Cahit, Only bandwidth, using prefix-action: http://goo.gl/SdcxHf Regards, 2016-04-25 17:48 GMT-03:00 Cahit Eyigünlü : > Hello friends ; > > > Is there any body know a way to apply rate limit for /32 ip on source for > bandwith and pps ? We have /20 subnets and

Re: [j-nsp] ASR 1001 throughput question

You may want to try your question on the Cisco NSP mailing list. Sent from my iPad > On Apr 25, 2016, at 16:54, Satish Patel wrote: > > We are planning to buy Cisco ASR 1001 but base model comes with 2.5G > throughput. Here is my requirement and question. > >

[j-nsp] IP Rate Limit

Hello friends ; Is there any body know a way to apply rate limit for /32 ip on source for bandwith and pps ? We have /20 subnets and we do not want to let an ip send 50K + pps if there is no exception but how should i write a generlized rule ? [SPDNet Telekomünikasyon A.S.

[j-nsp] ASR 1001 throughput question

We are planning to buy Cisco ASR 1001 but base model comes with 2.5G throughput. Here is my requirement and question. Basically we have 10G link and legit traffic is 1G around but most of time we get DDoS attack and because of that we upgrade link to 10G. so let say we get 5G attack on link and

[j-nsp] Stop IP Fragmentation attack

In our network we are getting IP Fragmentation attack, so attack use NTP or Chargen technic and sending very large packet on network which is filling my network TRUNKs. How do i stop IP Fragmentation attack on Cisco Edge router? I heard ACL can do that but don't know what kind of technique it use

Re: [j-nsp] ACX5048 - vlan-map conflict with routing-instance with vlan-id tags?

Thanks Eric/Khairul, Right... so, set bridge-domains isn't allowed in acx5048... it's set vlans. so if i replace 1/1/1 with a valid interface on my acx5048 0/0/38 set interfaces ge-0/0/38 unit 281 encapsulation vlan-bridge set interfaces ge-0/0/38 unit 281 vlan-id 281 set interfaces ge-0/0/38

Re: [j-nsp] ACX5048 - vlan-map conflict with routing-instance with vlan-id tags?

> Can't actually picture what you are really trying to achieve here with an > irb and multiple vlan tags, but did you try configuring `vlan-id-list` under > the logical unit? That or vlan-id-range might be useful. > > If what i just said was totally irrelevant to you, please elaborate the >

Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS precision-timers for BGP

This knob has been in all our confs for years (from 12.3 to 14.2). At least it doesn't seem to do anything bad. > Le 25 avr. 2016 à 17:16, Adam Chappell a écrit : > > Does anyone have positive or negative experience with this feature in 14.1 > please? > > Currently in

[j-nsp] JUNOS precision-timers for BGP

Does anyone have positive or negative experience with this feature in 14.1 please? Currently in a situation troubleshooting consequences of high CPU usage with a number of aggravating factors. Most sensitive to the scarcity of CPU resources however is a number of BGP sessions with aggressive

Re: [j-nsp] CGNat PBA - MX104 w/MS-MIC

Thanks, I tried 1024 and 256 block size and still get the same error. I have Junos: 13.3R6.5 What is a stable/good version that I should upgrade to in order to get PBA support ? 14.2R2 ? or something else ? agould@eng-lab-mx104-cgn# set services nat pool nat1 port

Re: [j-nsp] CGNat PBA - MX104 w/MS-MIC

Hello, What is the JUNOS version? PBA on MS-MIC and MS-MPC is supported from 14.2R2 if memory serves but recommended is 14.1R5-S1 and newer. And DetNAT on MS-MIC (and MS-MPC) is a roadmap item. HTH Thx Alex On 23/04/2016 01:27, Aaron wrote: I'm trying to enable port block allocation (pba) for