[j-nsp] Juniper-Cisco Hardware Comparison

Hi Experts If I would like to compare the features of Juniper/Cisco products from the same family. I mean if you have a Cisco router and you want to find the equivalent or near equivalent router in Juniper (Enterprise/Service Provide), is there any tool or URL for this? BR,

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper-Cisco Hardware Comparison

$quoted_author = Walaa Abdel razzak ; If I would like to compare the features of Juniper/Cisco products from the same family. I mean if you have a Cisco router and you want to find the equivalent or near equivalent router in Juniper (Enterprise/Service Provide), is there any tool or URL for

Re: [j-nsp] Understanding DPC Cards

Richard, Martin, Nilesh... thank you for the all the feedback. We got the box online and starting to function ;) Our goal with this box is to migrate everything off a 7606 that's currently performing a variety of tasks at layer2/layer3 including BGP etc... once we get some other boxes online,

[j-nsp] BGP Communities

Good morning.. I hope I'm not being a pain to folks on the list.. J So we have our first MX480 up and running now - things are progressing along nicely thanks to all the help from this list. OSPF, IPv4/IPv6, iBGP up and running. Having a small issue around eBGP peering. When I bring up a

Re: [j-nsp] RPD event M20

Thanks, we're going to try these steps out and I will let you know. El 05/05/2010 4:30, Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim escribió: without studying your topology in detail, i think the best reason that can be explained by your rtsockmon output is there is spurious routing updates in your topology. these

Re: [j-nsp] BGP Communities

Paul, When I do show route community 11666:5000 I get a list of the proper prefixes as expected. 11666:5000 is our own network routes. The same occurs when I list 11666:4000 which is customer network routes - displays the list correctly. This confirms in my mind that the MX480 is receiving

Re: [j-nsp] BGP Communities

Hi Paul, Your current outbound policy will only match routes that have BOTH 11666:4000 AND 11666:5000. These statements: from community outbound-xx; community outbound- members [ 11666:4000 11666:5000 ]; result in a logical AND. Instead, you probably want something

Re: [j-nsp] BGP Communities

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 10:05:42AM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote: community inbound- members [ 11666:2000 11666:2002 ]; community outbound- members [ 11666:4000 11666:5000 ]; Defining multiple members like this is how you implement a logical AND, so both members will be required if

Re: [j-nsp] BGP Communities

Hello there, Below regex works too: community inbound- members (11666:2000)|(11666:2002) Saves a line of code :-) Rgds Alex - Original Message - From: Smith W. Stacy st...@acm.org To: Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org Cc: 'jnsp' juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Wednesday, May

Re: [j-nsp] BGP Communities

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 10:05:42AM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote: Hi, Paul! [dd] In the Cisco world, we had to define network statements of our own subnets and route those blocks to Null0 in order to advertise. I'm thinking something similar here in JunOS? You can check what is actually

Re: [j-nsp] BGP Communities

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 04:24:04PM +0100, Alex wrote: Hello there, Below regex works too: community inbound- members (11666:2000)|(11666:2002) The downside to this is you can't add communities using the same named definition, since regexp can only be used to match. If you have two

[j-nsp] ICHIP/CB error on MX

Hi there, my log is full of messages like: May 6 06:43:50 fpc2 ICHIP(3)_REG_ERR:Non first cell drops in ichip fi rord: 9 May 6 06:45:50 fpc2 ICHIP(0)_REG_ERR:Non first cell drops in ichip fi rord: 0 May 6 06:47:51 fpc2 ICHIP(3)_REG_ERR:Non first cell drops in ichip fi rord: 9 May 6