Re: [j-nsp] Rock-solid JUNOS for QFX5100
On Aug 13, 2019, at 1:50 PM, Dan Římal wrote: > > Model: qfx5100-48s-6q > Junos: 17.3R3-S4.2 > > Creating vlan means stop forwarding traffic for approx 3 seconds probably on > trunk ports with allowed all vlans, or something like this. Pretty bad for > bfd going through this ifaces. > > Does anyone have a similar issue? We have attempted (twice) to get to 17 from 14 on our QFX 5100. The first time we got to 16 and none of the interfaces would come up. TAC couldn't figure it out on the spot and we reverted. In the post-mortem they discovered that we had an "unsupported" config item (a discard interface) that essentially prevented the box from booting and bringing up any interfaces. Second time we tried we got to version 16, but then the subsequent move to 17 was a disaster. The switch ate all the DHCP traffic passing through it, rendering the network quite unusable. Again TAC couldn't figure it out during the maintenance window so we rolled back. So we're still on 16, but I haven't wanted to try another update. Sounds like we might need to just jump to 18 and see if we can skip over some of this other stuff. Jason ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Rock-solid JUNOS for QFX5100
I'd like to add to that, l2circuit hot standby needs 18+ to work, I had been waiting for some time now for 18 to be recommended to use it. Thanks for the info much appreciated! -phil -Original Message- From: Richard McGovern Sent: August 13, 2019 10:30 AM To: Philippe Girard ; Ross Halliday ; Andrey Kostin Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Rock-solid JUNOS for QFX5100 Just FYI for all, but 18.1R3-S6 is specifically needed for EVPN/VXLAN use cases with QFX5110, not so much QFX5100. For 5100 without EVPN/VXLAN 14.1x53-D[latest] is very stable AFAIK. There are no real added features/functionality for QFX5100 outside of EVPN/VXLAN, so if this is not your use case, 14.1x53 should be equivalent feature/functionality wise to 18.x. For both EX and QFX I [now] recommend staying away from 16.x or 17.x, as no added benefits. S-Releases are the new Standard 'recommended' for almost all products. For sure all EX and all QFX. Not happy with this, but it is what it is. Please also note that "TAC Recommended" is generic BEST (fewest cases, along with some deployment/downloads) from purely STABILITY point of view, and does not take into account specific use cases. Your best bet is to discuss any code upgrades with your local Juniper account team. Even if you just work only with a specific partner, that partner has a Juniper team with an SE supporting them. I am also of the firm believe that upgrade for upgrade sake or to stay most current is not always a great idea - if not broken why try to fix/change? Just FYI, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 8/12/19, 11:31 AM, "Philippe Girard" wrote: Hi Ross We've recently switched our 5100s to 18.1R3-S5. 18.1 is stable with BGP/OSPF/LDP/RSVP/MPLS and LACP LAG in general. We don't use STP of any kind with the QFXs so I can't really help there. I was hesitant to upgrade to 18.X since the 5100 was still the only QFX not to have and 18 version recommended on KB21476, but recently they updated the KB to include that model, so I'd say it's pretty safe now. They've pushed out S6 in July, if I'd have to re-do it now I'd use that one instead of S5. The kind of problem you're describing sounds like what we've lived through with 14.X and VCF when we first started using these. We'd commit a change and some random ports would stop passing traffic, we'd then have to delete port config and re provision for traffic to resume. Lots of weird stuff like that kept happening until we go fed up with the architecture and moved to routed MPLS with almost no layer2 switching. Good luck. -phil -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp On Behalf Of Ross Halliday Sent: August 12, 2019 9:20 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] Rock-solid JUNOS for QFX5100 Dear List, I'm curious if anybody can recommend a JUNOS release for QFX5100 that is seriously stable. Right now we're on the previously-recommended version 17.3R3-S1.5. Everything's been fine in testing, and suddenly out of the blue there will be weird issues when I make a change. I suspect maybe they are related to VSTP or LAG, or both. 1. Add a VLAN to a trunk port, all the access ports on that VLAN completely stopped moving packets. Disable/delete disable all of the broken interfaces restored function. This happened during the day. I opened a JTAC ticket and they'd never heard of an issue like this, of course we couldn't reproduce it. I no longer recall with confidence, but I think the trunk port may have been a one-member LAG (replacement of a downstream switch). 2. New trunk port (a two-port LACP LAG) not sending VSTP BPDUs for some VLANs. I'm not sure if it was coincidence or always broken as I had recently began feeding new VSTP BPDUs (thus the root bridge changed) before I even looked at this. Other trunk ports did not exhibit the same issue. Completely deleted the LAG and rolled back to fix. This was on a fresh turnup and luckily wasn't in a topology that could form a loop. Features I'm using include: - BGP - OSPF - PIM - VSTP - LACP - VRRP - IGMPv2 and v3 - Routing-instance - CoS for multicast - CoS for unicast - CoS classification by ingress filter - IPv4-only - ~7k routes in FIB (total of all tables) - ~1k multicast groups There are no automation features, no MPLS, no MC-LAG, no EVPN, VXLAN, etc. These switches are L3 boxes that hand off IP to an MX core. Management is in the default instance/table, everything else is in a routing instance. These boxes have us scared to touch them outside of a window as seemingly basic changes risk blowing the whole thing up. Is this a case where an
Re: [j-nsp] non-split tunneling to SRX dynamic vpn with Pulse Secure client?
Old thread (2015)... Is there still a problem with MacOS using Pulse Secure to connect with SRX Dynamic/Remote Access VPN ? Anyone know how to make it work ? I do have Windows 10 working fine... but not MacOS Apple laptop. Using SRX300 15.1X49-D150.2 and Pulse client from Junipers website 5.1R5.1 ps-pulse-win-5.1r5.1-b61437-64bitinstaller.msi - windows 10 working ps-pulse-mac-5.1r5.1-b61437-installer.dmg - macos not working -Aaron -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Dewell Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 7:39 PM To: Nick Schmalenberger Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] non-split tunneling to SRX dynamic vpn with Pulse Secure client? Have you tried 0/1 and 128/1 instead of 0/0? That's also required for backup-router destination as well, so might solve this problem too. On Mar 23, 2015, at 7:33 PM, Nick Schmalenberger wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 06:29:30PM -0800, Nick Schmalenberger wrote: >> I need to have my vpn clients default route go over their tunnel >> to my SRX. Putting 0.0.0.0/0 as the remote-protected-resource >> works for Windows clients 5.1r1.1-b52267, but with Mac Pulse >> Secure is never able to setup a tunnel and connect. >> >> If I put some more specific routes, such as private addresses I >> use internally and certain public addresses, as >> remote-protected-resources, the Mac client (5.1r1.1-b52267 again) >> is able to connect fine and reach all those networks/hosts with >> the vpn assigned address, or NAT out of the same SRX in the case >> of the public destinations (what I mostly want to do). >> >> Does anyone else have that problem? Is there a known bug with the >> Mac client? I made a support case with JTAC, and they agreed it >> was a bug but said I need to call back and make a new case for >> the Pulse Secure Client instead of SRX. >> >> Another issue I had, was how to route the vpn clients assigned >> private addresses, and give the route to OSPF. I made an >> aggregate route for them, but it seemed like they weren't >> contributing to bring it up, so I made a reject route for one of >> the addresses in the network but not the pool. It worked, but the >> clients couldn't connect to the srx itself. Any other >> suggestions? A better action than reject for that? Thanks! >> -Nick Schmalenberger >> >> P.S. this post was very helpful in figuring it all out: >> http://rtoodtoo.net/2013/10/01/jncie-sec-dynamic-vpn/ > > Juniper finally told me they reproduced this problem with the Mac > client, but also that the configuration did NOT work with > Windows! They then told me, the configuration is not supported at > all, but I should try some other vpn client such as VPN Tracker, > which I'm planning to do. It would then not use dynamic-vpn at > all, but could still use the same xauth access-profile. > > Meanwhile, I have also setup a site-to-site tunnel for some of > the same usage, and it allows clients to use the remote SRX's dns > proxy where dynamic-vpn clients could not (at least the way I > managed to get it to work). So this will have some advantages as > well. Thanks for the helpful suggestions! > -Nick > ___ > 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 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] SRX dynamic vpn with Pulse Secure client - MacOS Apple laptop not working
Is there still a problem with MacOS using Pulse Secure to connect with SRX Dynamic/Remote Access VPN ? Anyone know how to make it work ? I do have Windows 10 working fine... but not MacOS Apple laptop. Using SRX300 15.1X49-D150.2 and Pulse client from Junipers website 5.1R5.1 ps-pulse-win-5.1r5.1-b61437-64bitinstaller.msi - windows 10 working ps-pulse-mac-5.1r5.1-b61437-installer.dmg - macos not working I tried the 0/0 cut in half suggesting someone made, didn't seem to help Apple/Mac, but Windows still works. set security dynamic-vpn clients all remote-protected-resources 0.0.0.0/1 set security dynamic-vpn clients all remote-protected-resources 128.0.0.0/1 -Aaron Old thread (2015)... [j-nsp] non-split tunneling to SRX dynamic vpn with Pulse Secure client? https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/2015-March/030059.html ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Rock-solid JUNOS for QFX5100
Just FYI for all, but 18.1R3-S6 is specifically needed for EVPN/VXLAN use cases with QFX5110, not so much QFX5100. For 5100 without EVPN/VXLAN 14.1x53-D[latest] is very stable AFAIK. There are no real added features/functionality for QFX5100 outside of EVPN/VXLAN, so if this is not your use case, 14.1x53 should be equivalent feature/functionality wise to 18.x. For both EX and QFX I [now] recommend staying away from 16.x or 17.x, as no added benefits. S-Releases are the new Standard 'recommended' for almost all products. For sure all EX and all QFX. Not happy with this, but it is what it is. Please also note that "TAC Recommended" is generic BEST (fewest cases, along with some deployment/downloads) from purely STABILITY point of view, and does not take into account specific use cases. Your best bet is to discuss any code upgrades with your local Juniper account team. Even if you just work only with a specific partner, that partner has a Juniper team with an SE supporting them. I am also of the firm believe that upgrade for upgrade sake or to stay most current is not always a great idea - if not broken why try to fix/change? Just FYI, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 8/12/19, 11:31 AM, "Philippe Girard" wrote: Hi Ross We've recently switched our 5100s to 18.1R3-S5. 18.1 is stable with BGP/OSPF/LDP/RSVP/MPLS and LACP LAG in general. We don't use STP of any kind with the QFXs so I can't really help there. I was hesitant to upgrade to 18.X since the 5100 was still the only QFX not to have and 18 version recommended on KB21476, but recently they updated the KB to include that model, so I'd say it's pretty safe now. They've pushed out S6 in July, if I'd have to re-do it now I'd use that one instead of S5. The kind of problem you're describing sounds like what we've lived through with 14.X and VCF when we first started using these. We'd commit a change and some random ports would stop passing traffic, we'd then have to delete port config and re provision for traffic to resume. Lots of weird stuff like that kept happening until we go fed up with the architecture and moved to routed MPLS with almost no layer2 switching. Good luck. -phil -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp On Behalf Of Ross Halliday Sent: August 12, 2019 9:20 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] Rock-solid JUNOS for QFX5100 Dear List, I'm curious if anybody can recommend a JUNOS release for QFX5100 that is seriously stable. Right now we're on the previously-recommended version 17.3R3-S1.5. Everything's been fine in testing, and suddenly out of the blue there will be weird issues when I make a change. I suspect maybe they are related to VSTP or LAG, or both. 1. Add a VLAN to a trunk port, all the access ports on that VLAN completely stopped moving packets. Disable/delete disable all of the broken interfaces restored function. This happened during the day. I opened a JTAC ticket and they'd never heard of an issue like this, of course we couldn't reproduce it. I no longer recall with confidence, but I think the trunk port may have been a one-member LAG (replacement of a downstream switch). 2. New trunk port (a two-port LACP LAG) not sending VSTP BPDUs for some VLANs. I'm not sure if it was coincidence or always broken as I had recently began feeding new VSTP BPDUs (thus the root bridge changed) before I even looked at this. Other trunk ports did not exhibit the same issue. Completely deleted the LAG and rolled back to fix. This was on a fresh turnup and luckily wasn't in a topology that could form a loop. Features I'm using include: - BGP - OSPF - PIM - VSTP - LACP - VRRP - IGMPv2 and v3 - Routing-instance - CoS for multicast - CoS for unicast - CoS classification by ingress filter - IPv4-only - ~7k routes in FIB (total of all tables) - ~1k multicast groups There are no automation features, no MPLS, no MC-LAG, no EVPN, VXLAN, etc. These switches are L3 boxes that hand off IP to an MX core. Management is in the default instance/table, everything else is in a routing instance. These boxes have us scared to touch them outside of a window as seemingly basic changes risk blowing the whole thing up. Is this a case where an ancient version might be a better choice or is this release a lemon? I recall that JTAC used to recommend two releases, one being for if you didn't require "new features". I find myself stuck between the adages of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "Software doesn't age like wine". Given how poorly multicast seems to be understood by JTAC I'm very hesitant to upgrade to significantly newer releases.
