I wanted to bring this back up again to see if anyone at Juniper can
shed some light on why this restriction exists and if there are any
plans to fix it?
I ask because it seems this restriction is true even across logical
routers (since there is no "services" configuration sub-tree under the
logical router configuration)?
It just seems so unnecessary to me. Surely there is a better way of
doing this? At least allow the re-use of a pool across
routing-instances and logical routers?
Wink wrote:
In the AJRE student guide on page 6-21, it says that sessions are
tracked in one of two ways:
1. Per-service-set (interface-style service-sets)
2. Per-interface (next-hop-style service-sets)
Then in the Services Interfaces Configuration Guide (in the technical
documentation section Juniper's web site), it says this about
source-static translations:
#######
Any addresses in the pool that are not matched in the source-address
value remain unused, because a pool cannot be
shared among multiple terms or rules.
########
I can understand not having:
(a) the same pool reused across multiple terms in the same rule
(b) the same pool reused across rules in the same rule-set
(c) the same pool reused across rule-sets in the same service-set
What I can not understand is that if #1 and #2 at the top of this
e-mail are true... Why can't we have the same pool referenced in two
different rules that are in different service-sets? The pool would
not matter at that point because sessions are tracked by interface not
by the pool.
Am I missing something?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=9&i=5570&t=5570
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/juniper.html
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
