On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Pavel Lunin wrote:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-00
>
> Keeping in mind what we discussed in the next thread, it's way too
> complicated for the cheap ASICs, used in ethernet switches. Most of them, as
> far as I understand, are just h
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 06:32:02PM +0400, Pavel Lunin wrote:
>
> I meant that in order to do LB on labels alone (to have enough of
> hash-keys for micro-flows), you need a large enough set of labels in
> the core and more or less uniformly distributed traffic over these
> labels. If you have, s
show route advertising-protocol bgp extensive
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On 10/21/11 9:15 AM, "Loopback EZ" wrote:
>I am replacing an old Cisco router with a Brocade MLX as IBGP peer to a
>Juniper M10. I am only getting
On Friday, October 21, 2011 06:24:53 PM Pavel Lunin wrote:
> Thanks, I didn't see it. Cool idea, which allows to
> signal sharing proportion from the ingress to LSRs down
> the path. But, I am afraid, it's still not for the cheap
> PFEs. At least it seems like that from the first glance.
It also
I am not sure about exact Brocade command,
but do you have BGP "prefix-limit" enabled on Brocade?
Rgds
Alex
- Original Message -
From: "Loopback EZ"
To:
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 5:15 PM
Subject: [j-nsp] Unfamiliar with Juniper M10 Config Files
I am replacing an old Cisco rou
the show bgp neighbor (neighborip)
on the juniper will tell you how many it's sending. e.g. an example
session...
Active prefixes: 64903
Received prefixes:374540
Accepted prefixes:374538
Suppressed due to damping:0
Advertised prefixes:
I am replacing an old Cisco router with a Brocade MLX as IBGP peer to a
Juniper M10. I am only getting 250K routes and I have NO filtering
enabled. I know that the Juniper is receiving a full EBGP route table
but is only passing 250K to any of its internal IBGP peers including the
old Cisco.
Thanks Alex.
Let me give a shot on this.
Gokhan
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Alex wrote:
> **
> It should, in my view.
> Rgds
> Alex
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Gökhan Gümüş
> *To:* Alex
> *Cc:* juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> *Sent:* Friday, October 21, 2011 12:57 PM
> *Sub
It should, in my view.
Rgds
Alex
- Original Message -
From: Gökhan Gümüs
To: Alex
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] IPv6 MTU issue
Dear Alex,
Thanks for the response.
Yes, you are right.
This service is co
Dear Alex,
Thanks for the response.
Yes, you are right.
This service is configured on MX on logical router.
There is an aggregated interface is trunked to a switch as seen below,
abc> show configuration logical-systems tcr1 interfaces ae2.39
vlan-id 39;
family inet {
address a.b.c.d/30;
}
fam
My wild guess is that you are hitting a network of FreBSD/Olive/Linux IPv6
routers with certain cards where when 802.1Q is enabled, MTU is
automatically reduced by 4 bytes.
You can simulate it with Olive by enabling "vlan-tagging" on Intel PRO/100
card.
My $0.02
Thanks
Alex
- Original Mes
BTW, this is why I'm quite sceptically looking at the Juniper's
marketing of Express Chip simplicity and corresponded benefits. Lower
number of transistors in the crystal, greater MTBF, blah-blah.
Because of the mentioned features, which I don't really believe Juniper
could easily throw ou
Dear all,
I have an issue with IPv6 MTU.
When i make a traceroute to one destination, the MTU size is reduced from
1500 to 1496, somehow...?
What makes it worse is that hop which drops the MTU does not send ICMP
"packet too long" message back..
gg# scamper -I "trace -P udp -M abc
traceroute fro
I meant that in order to do LB on labels alone (to have
enough of hash-keys for micro-flows), you need a large
enough set of labels in the core and more or less
uniformly distributed traffic over these labels. If you
have, say, 10 PoPs and 90 core tunnels, it's very
probable that 20% of them car
On Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:32:02 PM Pavel Lunin wrote:
> I meant that in order to do LB on labels alone (to have
> enough of hash-keys for micro-flows), you need a large
> enough set of labels in the core and more or less
> uniformly distributed traffic over these labels. If you
> have, say,
* Keegan Holley [2011-10-21 00:38]:
> A spanning tree TCN would do it as well. It would be nice if configuring
> STP at the edge caused the box to TCN when it gives up mastership. I
> haven't tried it but I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Yes that would be nice and no it does not. The other way works
* Phil Mayers [2011-10-21 00:03]:
> I can think of a few ways vendors could solve this. Most simply, the
> backup PE could briefly down the link, to trigger an FDB flush.
> Hell, you could probably script this using EEM in cisco-land.
Yes, I'm looking into scripting something like that with JUNOS
17 matches
Mail list logo
