Is this a place to ask or get help on a Juniper router issue? I am trying to learn and then pass Juniper certification(s) and bout a J2320 router with a serial card. Even though it appears serial connections are no longer used and people have said I am wasting my time trying to make a serial connection between the Juniper serial card and another Juniper J2320 serial card (I really want to make it to a Cisco 1821 router serial card), I have been trying to to find out how to successfully do so.
If not here, can you suggest where to get help? Juniper won't help me at all - must contact a 'partner' and of course, since I am just a one person learning at home, am of not enough $$$$ to get any 'partner' interested in helping me. David M. Adams JR 700 Killington Court Mobile, Alabama 36609 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> (678) 641-0572 (cell) ________________________________ From: juniper-nsp <[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2021 6:41 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: juniper-nsp Digest, Vol 218, Issue 2 Send juniper-nsp mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of juniper-nsp digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Does QinQ work with VPLS on Juniper300? (Try Chhay) 2. MX Reboot with Reason, panic:data storage interrupt trap (Righa Sha) 3. Re: MX Reboot with Reason, panic:data storage interrupt trap (Chris Kawchuk) 4. RSVP path constraints for transit LSPs (Rob Foehl) 5. Re: Does QinQ work with VPLS on Juniper300? (Benny Lyne Amorsen) 6. Re: RSVP path constraints for transit LSPs ([email protected]) 7. Re: RSVP path constraints for transit LSPs (Rob Foehl) 8. what's the difference between SFPP-10GE-LR-IT and SFPP-10GE-LR optcis (Chen Jiang) 9. Re: what's the difference between SFPP-10GE-LR-IT and SFPP-10GE-LR optcis (Nathan Ward) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 10:49:13 +0700 From: Try Chhay <[email protected]> To: Roger Wiklund <[email protected]> Cc: Juniper List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Does QinQ work with VPLS on Juniper300? Message-ID: <cakcaeowupeofornjef310uceyzyf0ffv5oxdqfo8-qt-k_1...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear Roger, Many thanks for advising and sharing the link as the reference. Kind regards, Try Chhay On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 3:09 AM Roger Wiklund <[email protected]> wrote: > That's interesting. According to this page QinQ is not supported on > SRX300/320, not sure if that has anything to do with it? > > Configuring Q-in-Q Tunneling on Security Devices - TechLibrary - Juniper > Networks > <https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/task/configuration/layer2-security-qinq-tunneling-srx-series-els.html> > > NOTE Q-in-Q VLAN tagging is supported only on SRX340, SRX345, SRX550M, > and SRX1500 devices. > > NOTE VLAN translation is supported on SRX300 and SRX320 devices and these > devices do not support Q-in-Q tunneling. > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 6:11 AM Try Chhay <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Juniper NSP, >> >> We are trying to get QinQ working with VPLS on Juniper SRX300 but the >> configuration of QinQ seems limited with VPLS as we cannot insert full >> QinQ >> commands. >> a. Below is my QinQ Configuration is working fine on Juniper SRX300 >> without >> having any VPLS >> set interfaces ge-0/0/0 flexible-vlan-tagging >> set interfaces ge-0/0/0 encapsulation extended-vlan-bridge >> set interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 467 vlan-id-list 1-4094 >> set interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 467 input-vlan-map push >> set interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 467 output-vlan-map pop >> set interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 467 family ethernet-switching vlan members >> VL467-TEST >> >> b. Below is VPLS and QinQ configuration are not working >> set routing-instances VLAN467 instance-type vpls >> set routing-instances VLAN467 interface ge-0/0/0.467 >> set routing-instances VLAN467 protocols vpls encapsulation-type >> ethernet-vlan >> set routing-instances VLAN467 protocols vpls no-tunnel-services >> set routing-instances VLAN467 protocols vpls vpls-id 467 >> set routing-instances VLAN467 protocols vpls ignore-mtu-mismatch >> set routing-instances VLAN467 protocols vpls ignore-encapsulation-mismatch >> set routing-instances VLAN467 protocols vpls neighbor 1.1.1.1 >> >> set interfaces ge-0/0/0 flexible-vlan-tagging >> set interfaces ge-0/0/0 encapsulation extended-vlan-bridge >> set interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 467 vlan-id-list 1-4094 >> set interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 467 input-vlan-map push >> set interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 467 output-vlan-map pop >> set interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 467 family ethernet-switching vlan members >> VL467-TEST (when apply this command, juniper srx300 does not allow us to >> commit) >> >> Does anyone here used to experience this issue? Could you please help to >> advise how to get QinQ work with VPLS on Juniper 300? Many thanks for your >> help in advance... >> >> Kind regards, >> Try Chhay >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 21:10:35 +0300 From: Righa Sha <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: [j-nsp] MX Reboot with Reason, panic:data storage interrupt trap Message-ID: <CAJO3Vzyu29tycY5MM=n7y_b3nu6ueoe6teqfnpnok80vhch...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hello, I recently had an MX80 router reboot with reason being panic:data storage interrupt trap. Anyone come across such an issue and get to resolve.Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Righa ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 14:58:59 +1100 From: Chris Kawchuk <[email protected]> To: Righa Sha <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX Reboot with Reason, panic:data storage interrupt trap Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Im aware that the MX80's Flash can get worn out over time. Ive had to replace a few MX80s flashes with a compatible 3rd party USB/Flash to get them back up and running. (yes, voids warranty field-stripping an MX80 to get at the 2 flash modules in the rear area of the motherboard) -- but it worked. Field strip. Swap the flashes, Boot from USB installer, install JunOS, make a basic fxp0 config, load latest JunOS, push config back from RANCID, and the boxes are back in production and happy. - Ck. > On 3 Feb 2021, at 5:10 am, Righa Sha <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > I recently had an MX80 router reboot with reason being panic:data storage > interrupt trap. > > Anyone come across such an issue and get to resolve.Any assistance would be > greatly appreciated. > > Regards, > Righa > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:59:31 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Foehl <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: [j-nsp] RSVP path constraints for transit LSPs Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Possibly-missing-something-obvious question: are there any less-involved alternatives to link coloring to preclude RSVP from signaling LSPs through specific nodes? I've got some traffic occasionally wandering off where it shouldn't be -- mostly due to bypass LSPs landing on some "temporary" links -- and in this case, it'd be handy to just say "this box is never allowed to be a P router" and call it solved. -Rob ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 09:04:06 +0000 From: Benny Lyne Amorsen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Does QinQ work with VPLS on Juniper300? Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain Roger Wiklund <[email protected]> writes: > That's interesting. According to this page QinQ is not supported on > SRX300/320, not sure if that has anything to do with it? Just a little comment in case someone else needs QinQ on small SRXs: Layer 3 termination of QinQ does work on SRX, even if VPLS does not. That is unlikely to help the original poster, but others might find it useful. I.e. you can do this kind of thing on a plain SRX300: ge-0/0/5 { flexible-vlan-tagging; encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services; unit 20 { vlan-tags outer 0x8100.300 inner 0x8100.20; family inet { address 198.18.1.2/30; } } } ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:12:31 -0600 From: <[email protected]> To: "'Rob Foehl'" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] RSVP path constraints for transit LSPs Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I know of a few methods for steering traffic in MPLS-TE/RSVP-TE, I've done this in IOS-XR, but not in Junos at this point... but i found this link that might help in Junos... https://www.inetzero.com/in-control-with-rsvp/ One way is to change the te-metric on that P router that you don't want lsp to pass through...but that might be too global as it would seem to affect all TE LSP's passing through there. set protocols isis interface ge-0/0/1 level 1 te-metric 100 clear lsp to re-signal Make sure to do that on the opposite side te tunnel as you usually need to setup one in each direction as a te tunnel is unidirectional... however, i just learned of corouted-bidirectional, seems interesting https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/basic-lsp -configurtion.html#id-configuring-corouted-bidirectional-lsps again, this seems to be a nice and easy way to exclude a P router in cisco ios-xr from the te head-end, i don't know of the junos equivelent for this conf explicit-path name not-r2 index 1 exclude-address ipv4 unicast 10.2.2.2 commit -Aaron ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 21:32:30 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Foehl <[email protected]> To: Robert Huey <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [j-nsp] RSVP path constraints for transit LSPs Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 6 Feb 2021, Robert Huey wrote: > Have you looked into IGP Overload? I think it will do the trick without > ever getting into TE constraints. In this case, it's OSPF, so overload is just max metric. The path metric already exceeds any other through the network under ordinary conditions, which is why it's only a problem on occasion, and with bypass LSPs in particular. IGP metric isn't enough when "best path" is the same answer as "only available path", and it looks like switch-away-lsps goes too far in the opposite direction. -Rob ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 18:15:40 +0800 From: Chen Jiang <[email protected]> To: Juniper List <[email protected]> Subject: [j-nsp] what's the difference between SFPP-10GE-LR-IT and SFPP-10GE-LR optcis Message-ID: <canbfnw7khy_bndw57tdraw8_g1tvsm_vigncj2pqqd5acmb...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi! Experts I need some 10GE LR optics and found 2 options in Juniper : SFPP-10GE-LR-IT and SFPP-10GE-LR. >From Juniper Hardware Compatibility Tool I can't find a difference except SFPP-10GE-LR-IT has a widely operating temperature range and SFPP-10GE-LR-IT price is lower. So it seems SFPP-10GE-LR-IT is a more attractive choice. Could you pls shed some lights on this and thanks for your help. -- BR! James Chen ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:41:11 +1300 From: Nathan Ward <[email protected]> To: Chen Jiang <[email protected]> Cc: Juniper List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] what's the difference between SFPP-10GE-LR-IT and SFPP-10GE-LR optcis Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On 21/02/2021, at 11:15 PM, Chen Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi! Experts > > I need some 10GE LR optics and found 2 options in Juniper : SFPP-10GE-LR-IT > and SFPP-10GE-LR. > > From Juniper Hardware Compatibility Tool I can't find a difference > except SFPP-10GE-LR-IT has a widely operating temperature range > and SFPP-10GE-LR-IT price is lower. So it seems SFPP-10GE-LR-IT is a more > attractive choice. > > Could you pls shed some lights on this and thanks for your help. Have a look on the second tab of the hardware compatibility tool - the supported platforms. -IT is only supported on ACX710, and that?s the only one the ACX710 supports (i.e. it doesn?t support SFPP-10GE-LR). Why? Not sure. If I had to guess, it?s because the operating temp range of the ACXs are wider than other boxes on the low end and that matches the -IT model.. Though I note that the older ACX platforms (500, 1k, 2k, 4k at least) can work at -40c as well, and at least some of those can take SFPP-10G-LR. Maybe whoever the ACX710 was made for (a few things about the 710 suggest to me at least that they were made for a specific customer) is really strict about SFP specs. They are *much* cheaper list price, huh? Like, 1/8th. Odd. There seems to be -IT variants of a few SFP+s. -- Nathan Ward ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ------------------------------ End of juniper-nsp Digest, Vol 218, Issue 2 ******************************************* _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
