Hi,
How wrong we where doing that with our MX960, QFX5100, and a few
MX104 =D.
One of our OOB is a bunch of EX2300 switches using STP, on a
different set of dark fiber linking a few Metro data centers together...
but as usual with JNP... one went nuts and started spewing
Hi,
> I would personally not wire or use fxp0 unless I'm out of options.
> Some other vendors today have real out-of-band ethernet for MGMT,
> meaning own CPU, own memory, own OS not fate-sharing the
> control-plane, which is the correct solution for OOB, but not
> something we as a community are
gwe
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 21:41, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Thanks, but I just moved the fxp0 ip address to a revenue interface to get
> the pfe forwarding I needed.
+1. I think 'management' ethernet is misnomer and massive risk. It's
interface with direct access to control-plane, so if your MGMT
Thanks, but I just moved the fxp0 ip address to a revenue interface to get the
pfe forwarding I needed.
-Aaron
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
This used to be possible by setting the "net.pfe.transit_re" (or similar) value
using sysctl, but I'm not sure if it still works on newer Junos versions:
https://www.kumari.net/index.php/networking/tips-and-tricks/14-
I would not do this on production router, though. If you need to reach your
Hi,
On 22.11.2019 19:48, Dave Bell wrote:
This is definitely not possible. You can’t jump from the data plane out of
the fxp port. This is why things like jflow are only possible inband
The official statement is that it is neither possible nor supported. It was
even highly marketed as
Thanks
-Aaron
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi Aaron.
This is definitely not possible. You can’t jump from the data plane out of
the fxp port. This is why things like jflow are only possible inband
Regards
Dave
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 17:01, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Thanks again (Chris) for solving my vpls/irb/tagging combination problem
>
Thanks again (Chris) for solving my vpls/irb/tagging combination problem
yesterday. we can bridge successfully now.
Taking this one step further, we now are trying to route via fxp0 and
*through* it to the irb.100 interface and are unable to.
Is it possible to route traffic *through* an
You cannot put fxp0 into VRF but could put it into a logical system. And
logical system also have a seperate routing table other than inet.0.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Jim Devane jdev...@switchnap.com wrote:
Hello,
I need some ideas/help on a scenario I am sure comes up a lot but
Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chris Kawchuk
Sent: 08 July 2010 02:33
To: Jim Devane
Cc: juniper-nsp
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Managing MX480 fxp0
Answer:
interfaces {
fxp0 {
description MANAGEMENT
You could also put your production traffic into a VRF (not a logical
system). Not sure if MS-DPC will work for VRFs (routing-instances).
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 03:54:15PM +0800, Chen Jiang wrote:
You cannot put fxp0 into VRF but could put it into a logical system. And
logical system also
It's not about using the line cards. It's about keeping the fxp0
routes separate and isolated from the production routes. If you
happen to have overlapping address ranges between your production and
management subnets, you will have a problem that fxp0 routes will
interfere with production
I do this in my network. It works well.
David
On 7 July 2010 18:33, Chris Kawchuk juniperd...@gmail.com wrote:
Answer:
interfaces {
fxp0 {
description MANAGEMENT;
speed 100m;
link-mode full-duplex;
unit 0 {
family inet {
@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thu, July 8, 2010 4:54:15 AM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Managing MX480 fxp0
You cannot put fxp0 into VRF but could put it into a logical system. And
logical system also have a seperate routing table other than inet.0.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Jim Devane jdev...@switchnap.com
Devane jdev...@switchnap.com
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thu, July 8, 2010 10:26:24 AM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Managing MX480 fxp0
Putting fxp0 in a LS works from a routing perspective but it breaks NSR GRES
-
at least it does in 10.0R2. I have a JTAC case
Hello,
I need some ideas/help on a scenario I am sure comes up a lot but having
problems with.
I have an MX480. I want to be able to manage this MX from an internal (1918)
network through the fxp0 port. The internal network is not flat but routed and
there are several subnets which may
Send a bitch email to juniper. I have been begging for the capability to put
the fxp into a vrf.
On Jul 7, 2010 3:53 PM, Jim Devane jdev...@switchnap.com wrote:
Hello,
I need some ideas/help on a scenario I am sure comes up a lot but having
problems with.
I have an MX480. I want to be able to
18 matches
Mail list logo
