Re: [j-nsp] Line modules
Yes, most of the modules are supported in both the ERX-310 and the ERX-1440. Check the detailed ERX Module guide to see which specific MODs/IOAs that are supported in both platforms at http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/hardware/erx/junose82/hw-erx-module/nofr ames-collapsedTOC.html PDF version: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/hardware/erx/junose82/bookpdfs/hw-erx-mo dule.pdf Cheers. - Chris. Chris Kawchuk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Systems Engineering, Service Providers Juniper Networks Inc., Canada local: +1 (403) 470-8174 toll-free: +1 (866) 470-8174 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of M.Mihailidis Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:19 AM To: Juniper-Nsp Subject: [j-nsp] Line modules hello all i was wondering can i install a line module from a erx-1440 to a erx-310? ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i
Hi. M7i routers can be ordered with 256 or 512 MB RAM system board memory; any guidelines on what usage scenarios would make 512MB desirable or even mandatory ? Our need is a Internet router with 3 full-routing transit feeds and a bunch of peering connections that made us specify more memory for the routing engine, but that may or may not impact forwarding engine requirements. AS and J-Flow are already included in the RFP. Rubens ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i
Basicially routing table size, filtering list, and additional feature such as RPF check. If you are using this router for Internet core or something like that, I would recommend to have maximum memory from start. Memory cost is not expensive, and routing table size will be grow every day. If you have to upgrade the memory from production router later, it will be the pain in the XXX. Hyun Hyunseog Ryu Senior Network Engineer Norlight , Inc. as a part of Q-Comm Company Applications Engineering 13935 Bishops Drive Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone. +1-262-792-7965 Fax. +1-262-792-7733 Email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rubens Kuhl Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/01/2007 10:26 AM To juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net cc Fax to Subject [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i Hi. M7i routers can be ordered with 256 or 512 MB RAM system board memory; any guidelines on what usage scenarios would make 512MB desirable or even mandatory ? Our need is a Internet router with 3 full-routing transit feeds and a bunch of peering connections that made us specify more memory for the routing engine, but that may or may not impact forwarding engine requirements. AS and J-Flow are already included in the RFP. Rubens ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i
Hi Rubens, JunOS 9.0+ will require 256MB of RAM on the routing engines to load properly. JunOS 9.0 is expected to be released in Q1 2008. Notes from the Juniper PSN: --- PSN Issue: The RE-400-256 Routing Engine contains only 256MB of main memory. Beginning with JUNOS release 9.0, this is insufficient to run JUNOS software; the minimum supported main memory configuration for JUNOS 9.0 and above is 768MB. Solution 1: The RE-400-256 Routing Engine is replaced with the RE-400-768. This new Routing Engine model includes 768MB of main memory, which meets the new minimum requirement. Solution 2: Implementation Customers with RE-400-256 Routing Engines are strongly urged to upgrade those Routing Engines to RE-400-768 before installing JUNOS release 9.0 or higher. This upgrade is accomplished by installing two MEM-RE-256-S memory upgrade modules. --- Hence, you will need to upgrade your RE-400's to 768 Mb of RAM on a go-forward basis in order to load the newer JunOS images starting in 2008. On a side note, I *always* suggest loading any router with the maximum amount of memory, since the Global Internet routing table isn't getting any smaller =) - Chris. Chris Kawchuk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Systems Engineering, Service Providers Juniper Networks Inc., Canada local: +1 (403) 470-8174 toll-free: +1 (866) 470-8174 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Jr. Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:27 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i Hi. M7i routers can be ordered with 256 or 512 MB RAM system board memory; any guidelines on what usage scenarios would make 512MB desirable or even mandatory ? Our need is a Internet router with 3 full-routing transit feeds and a bunch of peering connections that made us specify more memory for the routing engine, but that may or may not impact forwarding engine requirements. AS and J-Flow are already included in the RFP. Rubens ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i
Gotcha, You are correct. cFEB can be either 128 or 256. Again, since the cFEB has all the actual forwarding routes for the router's ASIC's, you mya be able to get away with only 128M for now, but again, as the global routing table gets bigger and bigger, you may run into a limit. Likewise, if you start adding L3VPNs, and add more and more MPLS/VPN routes, you will run into the 128 Mb limit quickly. Hence, 256M is strongly recommended. - Chris. -Original Message- From: Rubens Kuhl Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:01 AM To: Chris Kawchuk Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i Chris, I always intended to fill-up RE memory with 768MB or more. My question was about CFEB memory, not RE memory... I stated that it can be ordered with 256 MB or 512 MB, but it's actually 128 MB or 256 MB. The MEM-FEB-256-S is an upgrade to 256 MB, not a 256MB increase. Rubens On 11/1/07, Chris Kawchuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Rubens, JunOS 9.0+ will require 256MB of RAM on the routing engines to load properly. JunOS 9.0 is expected to be released in Q1 2008. Notes from the Juniper PSN: --- PSN Issue: The RE-400-256 Routing Engine contains only 256MB of main memory. Beginning with JUNOS release 9.0, this is insufficient to run JUNOS software; the minimum supported main memory configuration for JUNOS 9.0 and above is 768MB. Solution 1: The RE-400-256 Routing Engine is replaced with the RE-400-768. This new Routing Engine model includes 768MB of main memory, which meets the new minimum requirement. Solution 2: Implementation Customers with RE-400-256 Routing Engines are strongly urged to upgrade those Routing Engines to RE-400-768 before installing JUNOS release 9.0 or higher. This upgrade is accomplished by installing two MEM-RE-256-S memory upgrade modules. --- Hence, you will need to upgrade your RE-400's to 768 Mb of RAM on a go-forward basis in order to load the newer JunOS images starting in 2008. On a side note, I *always* suggest loading any router with the maximum amount of memory, since the Global Internet routing table isn't getting any smaller =) - Chris. Chris Kawchuk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Systems Engineering, Service Providers Juniper Networks Inc., Canada local: +1 (403) 470-8174 toll-free: +1 (866) 470-8174 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Jr. Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:27 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i Hi. M7i routers can be ordered with 256 or 512 MB RAM system board memory; any guidelines on what usage scenarios would make 512MB desirable or even mandatory ? Our need is a Internet router with 3 full-routing transit feeds and a bunch of peering connections that made us specify more memory for the routing engine, but that may or may not impact forwarding engine requirements. AS and J-Flow are already included in the RFP. Rubens ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i
Rubens Kuhl Jr. schrieb: Hi, I always intended to fill-up RE memory with 768MB or more. My question was about CFEB memory, not RE memory... I stated that it can be the requirement for JunOS 9.0 refers to the RE memory, not the CFEB memory. ordered with 256 MB or 512 MB, but it's actually 128 MB or 256 MB. The MEM-FEB-256-S is an upgrade to 256 MB, not a 256MB increase. That's correct. However: isn't the MEM-FEB-256-S just a normal SDRAM module as well? Didn't know that was available as an upgrade. Regards, Nico -- Accelerated IT Services GmbH Schubertstrasse 10D-67251 Freinsheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.accelerated.de/ Telefon: +49 69-25738580-3Telefax: +49 69-25738580-4 HRB: 60665 - Amtsgericht Ludwigshafen UstID: DE253684415 Geschäftsführende Gesellschafter: Nicolaj Kamensek Ole Krieger ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i
Chris Kawchuk schrieb: Chris, You are correct. cFEB can be either 128 or 256. Again, since the cFEB has all the actual forwarding routes for the router's ASIC's, you mya be able to get away with only 128M for now, but again, as the global routing table gets bigger and bigger, you may run into a limit. but not because of the DRAM on the FEB. The forwarding-tables itself are stored in the SRAM from the FEB and on M7i CFEB it's 8MB in size(maybe available with 16mb, I don't know) which can hold up to approximately 550.000 routes. The dram only has a copy of the SRAM content. But the dram is important for other things like arp entries. Likewise, if you start adding L3VPNs, and add more and more MPLS/VPN routes, you will run into the 128 Mb limit quickly. Hence, 256M is strongly recommended. I agree. Regards, Nico -- Accelerated IT Services GmbH Schubertstrasse 10D-67251 Freinsheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.accelerated.de/ Telefon: +49 69-25738580-3Telefax: +49 69-25738580-4 HRB: 60665 - Amtsgericht Ludwigshafen UstID: DE253684415 Geschäftsführende Gesellschafter: Nicolaj Kamensek Ole Krieger ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i
On 11/1/07, Nicolaj Kamensek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Kawchuk schrieb: Chris, You are correct. cFEB can be either 128 or 256. Again, since the cFEB has all the actual forwarding routes for the router's ASIC's, you mya be able to get away with only 128M for now, but again, as the global routing table gets bigger and bigger, you may run into a limit. but not because of the DRAM on the FEB. The forwarding-tables itself are stored in the SRAM from the FEB and on M7i CFEB it's 8MB in size(maybe available with 16mb, I don't know) which can hold up to approximately 550.000 routes. The dram only has a copy of the SRAM content. But the dram is important for other things like arp entries. 550k IPv4 routes, I guess... so if all IPv4 prefixes get an IPv6 counterpart which has a prefix size twice as IPv4's, that would map to a 183k (IPv4 + IPv6) routes. Hummm... Likewise, if you start adding L3VPNs, and add more and more MPLS/VPN routes, you will run into the 128 Mb limit quickly. Hence, 256M is strongly recommended. I agree. Even on a Internet Exchange where there few ARP entries ? A cable scenario would use thousands of ARP entries... or there are any other reasons for having 256M on the FEB ? Rubens ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i
Rubens Kuhl Jr. schrieb: 550k IPv4 routes, I guess... so if all IPv4 prefixes get an IPv6 counterpart which has a prefix size twice as IPv4's, that would map to a 183k (IPv4 + IPv6) routes. Hummm... ~550k ipv4 routes with just 8mb sram, yes. We tried it here in the lab with several routing-instances on M20 /w SSB-E and SSB-E16(16MB SRAM, 256MB DRAM): * SSB-E: ~550.00 routes - heap 99%, ssb crashes * SSB-E16: 1.000.000 routes - heap 95%, ssb reached it's limit But e.g. with the old SSB-E you might not even reach those 550.000 routes anyway in a real world scenario because of the small amount of DRAM with just 64MB that stores arp-entries, the copy of the SRAM and so on.. Even on a Internet Exchange where there few ARP entries ? A cable scenario would use thousands of ARP entries... or there are any other reasons for having 256M on the FEB ? In our case: we need 64MB of DRAM in our M20 routers because we ran into limits with about 7500 arp entries. So we bought the SSB-E16 and are doing fine with currently 8500 arp entries. Heap usage dropped from 85% to 23%. Regards, Nico -- Accelerated IT Services GmbH Schubertstrasse 10D-67251 Freinsheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.accelerated.de/ Telefon: +49 69-25738580-3Telefax: +49 69-25738580-4 HRB: 60665 - Amtsgericht Ludwigshafen UstID: DE253684415 Geschäftsführende Gesellschafter: Nicolaj Kamensek Ole Krieger ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i
The cfeb computes/compiles the jtree that will be stored in the in the sram. Presumably this means the raw forwarding table has to be stored in the cfeb. The 'show route summary' command (on the cfeb not the normal RE CLI) shows this. CSBR0(London-AMS1 vty)# show route summary IPv4 Route Tables: Index Routes Size(b) -- -- Default 186 13224 1 9 638 2 5 353 MPLS Route Tables: Index Routes Size(b) -- -- Default1 68 IPv6 Route Tables: Index Routes Size(b) -- -- Default4 305 1 12 961 Other features will require/increase space in dram on the cfeb. ppmd in the pfe bfd in the pfe clowd? DCU/SCU prob loads of others. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i
Hi, That's correct. However: isn't the MEM-FEB-256-S just a normal SDRAM module as well? Didn't know that was available as an upgrade. As far as i know, M20/M40 Internet Processor II SCB - 2xSLOTs DIMM DRAM ECC 168-pin M10 (not M10i) - 1xSLOT SO-DIMM SDRAM ECC 144-pin I do not know what memory and how many slots in M7i CFEB. Actually i have not tried to increase the PFE memory. Have anybody tried? Best regards, Ruslan ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] M7i ASM
Eric,
The lt- interface is supported on an M7i, when equipped with an ASM.
(In fact, I believe the lt- interface is supported on an M7i, whether
or not it is equipped with an ASM, since the CFEB contains a built-in
tunnel interface.)
Also, the same book you referenced says M7i ASMs support the lt-
interface, if you look at the section called Configuring a Logical
Tunnel Interface.
-Jon
On 10/31/07, Eric Van Tol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
According to this page:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos84/swconfig84-servic
es/id-10028063.html#id-10028063
the ASM for the M7i does not support lt- interfaces. However, when I
configure one, it seems to work just fine:
admin# show logical-routers blah
interfaces {
lt-1/2/0 {
unit 20 {
encapsulation ethernet;
peer-unit 10;
family inet {
address 192.168.1.2/30;
}
}
}
}
[edit]
admin# show interfaces
lt-1/2/0 {
unit 10 {
encapsulation ethernet;
peer-unit 20;
family inet {
address 192.168.1.1/30;
}
}
}
[edit]
admin# run ping 192.168.1.2 rapid
PING 192.168.1.2 (192.168.1.2): 56 data bytes
!
--- 192.168.1.2 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.645/0.684/0.825/0.071 ms
Has this recently been enabled for the M7i?
-evt
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i
Ruslan A. Magomedov schrieb: Hi, As far as i know, M20/M40 Internet Processor II SCB - 2xSLOTs DIMM DRAM ECC 168-pin 2 slots is correct but without ECC. You can upgrade a SSB-E to 128mb by installing 2 64mb modules from 2 SSB-E in just one SSB-E. However, I did not manage to find a 3rd party module working in the SSB-E yet. The original one is a 64MB single-sided SDRAM, no ECC, PC66 with Samsung chips. M10 (not M10i) - 1xSLOT SO-DIMM SDRAM ECC 144-pin I do not know what memory and how many slots in M7i CFEB. Actually i have not tried to increase the PFE memory. Have anybody tried? Only in M20 and M40. Regards, Nico -- Accelerated IT Services GmbH Schubertstrasse 10D-67251 Freinsheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.accelerated.de/ Telefon: +49 69-25738580-3Telefax: +49 69-25738580-4 HRB: 60665 - Amtsgericht Ludwigshafen UstID: DE253684415 Geschäftsführende Gesellschafter: Nicolaj Kamensek Ole Krieger ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] SNMP OID for ip description
Hi, I have been unable to find what is the OID for Junose (E-Series) for the interfaces ip description. All I've been able to get is the name of the interfaces which is not exactly what I want. Can anyone help me here? -Gabriel ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] M7i ASM
I see. I was unaware that they came with an integrated tunnel PIC.
Thanks to all who responded.
-evt
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Looney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:04 PM
To: Eric Van Tol
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] M7i ASM
Eric,
The lt- interface is supported on an M7i, when equipped with an ASM.
(In fact, I believe the lt- interface is supported on an M7i, whether
or not it is equipped with an ASM, since the CFEB contains a built-in
tunnel interface.)
Also, the same book you referenced says M7i ASMs support the lt-
interface, if you look at the section called Configuring a Logical
Tunnel Interface.
-Jon
On 10/31/07, Eric Van Tol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
According to this page:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos84/swconfi
g84-servic
es/id-10028063.html#id-10028063
the ASM for the M7i does not support lt- interfaces.
However, when I
configure one, it seems to work just fine:
admin# show logical-routers blah
interfaces {
lt-1/2/0 {
unit 20 {
encapsulation ethernet;
peer-unit 10;
family inet {
address 192.168.1.2/30;
}
}
}
}
[edit]
admin# show interfaces
lt-1/2/0 {
unit 10 {
encapsulation ethernet;
peer-unit 20;
family inet {
address 192.168.1.1/30;
}
}
}
[edit]
admin# run ping 192.168.1.2 rapid
PING 192.168.1.2 (192.168.1.2): 56 data bytes
!
--- 192.168.1.2 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.645/0.684/0.825/0.071 ms
Has this recently been enabled for the M7i?
-evt
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i
I belive Juniper M20/M40 uses following memory for SSB. Smart Modular Technology Part Number : SM572088094D6G6 Desc : 64MB 168pin ECC memory You can check with your memory vendor. MemoryTen has a couple of them in stock. http://www.memoryten.com/c/3L-AMB/AMB.htm Hyun Hyunseog Ryu Senior Network Engineer Norlight , Inc. as a part of Q-Comm Company Applications Engineering 13935 Bishops Drive Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone. +1-262-792-7965 Fax. +1-262-792-7733 Email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nicolaj Kamensek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/01/2007 01:08 PM To Ruslan A. Magomedov [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Fax to Subject Re: [j-nsp] System board memory expansion on M7i Ruslan A. Magomedov schrieb: Hi, As far as i know, M20/M40 Internet Processor II SCB - 2xSLOTs DIMM DRAM ECC 168-pin 2 slots is correct but without ECC. You can upgrade a SSB-E to 128mb by installing 2 64mb modules from 2 SSB-E in just one SSB-E. However, I did not manage to find a 3rd party module working in the SSB-E yet. The original one is a 64MB single-sided SDRAM, no ECC, PC66 with Samsung chips. M10 (not M10i) - 1xSLOT SO-DIMM SDRAM ECC 144-pin I do not know what memory and how many slots in M7i CFEB. Actually i have not tried to increase the PFE memory. Have anybody tried? Only in M20 and M40. Regards, Nico -- Accelerated IT Services GmbH Schubertstrasse 10D-67251 Freinsheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.accelerated.de/ Telefon: +49 69-25738580-3Telefax: +49 69-25738580-4 HRB: 60665 - Amtsgericht Ludwigshafen UstID: DE253684415 Geschäftsführende Gesellschafter: Nicolaj Kamensek Ole Krieger ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] M7i ASM
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 02:03:57PM -0400, Jonathan Looney wrote: The lt- interface is supported on an M7i, when equipped with an ASM. (In fact, I believe the lt- interface is supported on an M7i, whether or not it is equipped with an ASM, since the CFEB contains a built-in tunnel interface.) Correct! Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] 10G module for MX - which one?
Hi! I'm looking to MX series as an IP-router with 10G interfaces, and have a question. Please advice which 4x10G module for MX480 is needed for use it as a common IP-router with base features (bgp, ospf, snmp counters on vlan interfaces, rate limiting). DPCE-R-Q-4XGE-XFP $300k - Layer 2 and 3 capable with enhanced queuing DPCE-X-Q-4XGE-XFP $195k - Layer 2+ capable with enhanced queuing DPCE-R-4XGE-XFP $96k - Layer 2 and 3 capable I read the Data Sheet http://www.juniper.net/products/modules/100209.pdf, but not all is clear understanded by me. :-( I think the third module will be enough but not sure. Thanks. -- Pavel ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10G module for MX - which one?
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 23:28:17 +0200 From: Pavel Gulchouck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi! I'm looking to MX series as an IP-router with 10G interfaces, and have a question. Please advice which 4x10G module for MX480 is needed for use it as a common IP-router with base features (bgp, ospf, snmp counters on vlan interfaces, rate limiting). DPCE-R-Q-4XGE-XFP $300k - Layer 2 and 3 capable with enhanced queuing DPCE-X-Q-4XGE-XFP $195k - Layer 2+ capable with enhanced queuing DPCE-R-4XGE-XFP $96k - Layer 2 and 3 capable I read the Data Sheet http://www.juniper.net/products/modules/100209.pdf, but not all is clear understanded by me. :-( I think the third module will be enough but not sure. Probably the third is the one. The second does not really route, so it does not look useful for your purposes. The first does fine grained queuing for things like per-VLAN queues. It is significantly more complex than the standard version. If you don't need it, go with the DPCE-R-4XGE-XFP. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 pgplUzqGWNclx.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] JUNO OP Script function
Hi, OP Script works but www.stg.brown.edu tell me error (1102): tag uses GI for an undeclared element: argument. Am I using wrong namespace or JUNO has another URI for protocol? ?xml version=1.0 standalone=yes? xsl:stylesheet version=1.0 xmlns:xsl=http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform xmlns:junos=http://xml.juniper.net/junos/*/junos http://xml.juniper.net/junos/*/junos xmlns:xnm=http://xml.juniper.net/xnm/1.1/xnm http://xml.juniper.net/xnm/1.1/xnm xmlns:jcs=http://xml.juniper.net/junos/commit-scripts/1.0 http://xml.juniper.net/junos/commit-scripts/1.0 xsl:import href=../import/junos.xsl/ !--this is layer3 interface information script-- xsl:variable name=arguments argument I am trying for use OP Script function with long CLI (ex: show pim neighbors instance test-multicast detail | find SparseDense) for my network management team. If anybody use OP or COMMIT scripts, can you share some tips? b/c I am not XML exporter. Thanks, Peter ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Static NAT
I'm a recent Cisco convert - trying to wrap my head around the Juniper
was of dealing with NAT.
I'm trying to get a setup working where I can allow inbound traffic
through the NAT to specific internal machines.
Ideally I'd like to be able to map things at a port level - ie. port 80
on external address X goes to port Y on internal address Z.
I have things working to the point where I can NAT a specific internal
address to a specific external address (see config at the end), with
everyone else using PAT on a different address. But I can't seem to
figure out how I allow inbound traffic through.
This is on a J-4350, if that makes any difference...
Any pointers in the right direction would be most appreciated!
--
matt
Here's my service nat config. I have the service-set for this applied on
the internal interface:
rule NAT {
match-direction input;
term static-matt {
from {
source-address {
192.168.1.238/32;
}
}
then {
translated {
source-pool static-matt;
translation-type {
source static;
}
}
}
}
term dynamic {
then {
translated {
source-pool dynamic;
translation-type {
source dynamic;
}
}
}
}
}
}
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] SNMP OID for ip description
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been unable to find what is the OID for Junose (E-Series) for the interfaces ip description. All I've been able to get is the name of the interfaces which is not exactly what I want. Can anyone help me here? Look here for OIDs: http://www.oidview.com/mibs/detail.html Find JUNOSe stuff here: http://www.oidview.com/mibs/4874/md-4874-1.html scott ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] chassisd syslog message
Hi, I seem to receiving the following message in a J2350 router about every minute or so: /kernel: chassisd pid 2922 syscall 54 ran for 1251.115 ms Is this normal? It seems that whenever this message is logged, the cli pauses for a few seconds, giving the impression that the router is unresponsive. The same behavior occurs whether the router is fully configured or just has a factory-default config on it. Saw this in a J2320, too, so maybe it's normal? thanks, evt ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] J-Series vs SSG
We are a small web hosting company looking to implement a pair of Juniper firewalls behind our border routers (both J4350s running BGP to a couple of ISPs). What we are looking for is pretty simple - stateful firewalling, simple ACLs, DDoS protection, active/passive failover. We are looking at getting either 2 x SSG 320 or 2 x J2320s. I'm aware that these are exactly the same hardware - the question is whether we want to be running ScreenOS or JunOS. My preference right now is J2320s with JunOS as I'm very comfortable working with JunOS. But there seems to be a consensus amongst people I have spoken to that ScreenOS will be easier to configure and will be a better solution in the long term. Also as far as I can gather, JunOS isn't able to sync firewall state which ScreenOS does easily. Any thoughts would be most appreciated. Thanks, Alex ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
