I have a cx111 which I use when the primary connection goes down. I'm
using usb tethering from my phone which works only if you're willing to
constantly mess with it. I wouldn't recommend that setup.
However, I have a customer using the non rebadged cx111 (aka cradlepoint
cba750) with the paired
The NE have the correct ARP address of the MX5, the MX5 on the other hand
does not have an ARP entry. It does learn a MAC from the NE in the bridge
domain. for what ever reason the RI is unable to put the two together.
For some reason the link between the Bridge and Routing Instance is
Traffic on the list seems absolutely through the roof here...And a lot
of the messages are double posts, or following the same form. They're
not like a markov generator or anything but they're kind of out of
character for this list.
Did the list posted somewhere new for the GWF crowd?
--
On Thursday, May 02, 2013 05:40:28 AM Michael Loftis wrote:
And answered my own ? by reading the rest of my inbox.
The posts look legit, but consistently seem to be HTML-based
e-mail.
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Maybe legit but messages going back to 2010
Only three more years to goŠ.
Only adding to the spam and unsubscribing rsn.
Bruce
On 2/05/13 2:32 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Thursday, May 02, 2013 05:40:28 AM Michael Loftis wrote:
And answered my own ? by reading the
Is it a tri-rate SFP?
On May 1, 2013 7:29 PM, Keith kwo...@citywest.ca wrote:
**
Trying to connect GE copper SFP on MX to a 100meg port on a cisco switch,
3560 actually.
ge-0/0/2 {
description Test Link ;
enable;
speed 100m;
link-mode full-duplex;
First option would be to check to see if the IMAP client is using the
IMAP IDLE command. If so, you might want to disable this option. Or
configure the SRX to never timeout this connections (not sure if
possible).
Second option would be a check to see what screening options you have
from untrust
Hi Jerry,
On Jun 22, 2011, at 11:07 PM, Jerry Jaquith jer...@redapt.com wrote:
I’m tasked with upgrading about 600 EX4200 switches to the latest recommended
OS. My first thought is to begin writing perl scripts, but wonder if anyone
has already been down this road and can offer some help?
On Thursday, May 02, 2013 08:36:59 AM Bruce Morgan wrote:
Maybe legit but messages going back to 2010
Only three more years to goŠ.
Only adding to the spam and unsubscribing rsn.
My suspicion is the mailing list held them (may be
something to do with the fact that they all seem to be
ER certs are expired, it was for the old Enterprise Routing. ER is now
replaced with the ENT track for ENterprise routing and switching,
the SEC track deals with SRX
On 27 January 2010 11:58, Scott Morris s...@emanon.com wrote:
**
E is for the BRAS systems (ERX)
M is for the SP systems
hi list.
i'm guessing this is a buffer thing, but i can't explain why it only
happens on my 1ge ports and not when i punt the traffic over an 10ge
port.
i have two 1ge in an ae bundle. both of them basically look like this:
Statistics last cleared: 2013-05-02 00:16:50 UTC (00:02:02 ago)
There were a few older messages that became unstuck from the system today.
This has hammered the list machine in some weird ways and highlighted to me
some changes I likely need to make to improve performance and scale in the
future.
Apologies for the problems and if your message was one that
The 40x1GE MX card does only support 1G, the MPC and the 2x10GE + 20x1GE
supports 10/100/1000.
Magnus
Keith mailto:kwo...@citywest.ca
16 maj 2011 19:32
Trying to connect GE copper SFP on MX to a 100meg port on a cisco
switch, 3560 actually.
ge-0/0/2 {
description Test Link ;
enable;
Does the ssg20 do destination NAT? That is the feature you are after -
alternatively wccp
Btw - I wouldn't recommend transparent https.
Sent from a mobile device
On 01/05/2012, at 14:08, Josh Farrelly j...@base-2.co.nz wrote:
Hi guys.
We have a customer who’d like to implement a
On May 2, 2013, at 2:42 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
My suspicion is the mailing list held them (may be
something to do with the fact that they all seem to be
HTML-based e-mail), and maybe they're all now being released
for one reason or another.
As a friend of mine would
if you take 10.8.0.0/31 then usuable IP addresses are 10.8.0.0 and 10.8.0.1
(p-2-p). No broadcast address for this particular /31 subnets. It is a kind
of pure point to point subnet.
Regards
Siva
On 18 May 2011 15:58, Murphy, Jay, DOH jay.mur...@state.nm.us wrote:
10.8.0.1/31 What are the
There are two methods possible ways of doing this (to me).
1) Stand up two VPN tunnels and just have one down at all times. You would
use your existing configuration (assuming it's main mode) and just change
the source IP where you expect the VPN initiator to come from.
2) Change your existing
There is no network address and subnet. There are only two addresses
available: 10.8.0.0 and 10.8.0.1. The /31 is actually a relatively new
construct to conserve address space for point to point links.
Luck,
Buz
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
That seems like it should work. Note that you'd need a policy in place
from/to the same zone to allow this traffic. Even intrazone traffic is
denied by default on an srx. I suspect that might be the issue here.
On May 1, 2013 8:49 AM, Bruce Buchanan bbuch...@nexicomgroup.net wrote:
Hi List
Did you edit the new policy and set anything in it first?
Will O'Brien
On May 1, 2013, at 8:48 AM, James S. Smith
jsm...@windmobile.camailto:jsm...@windmobile.ca wrote:
I have an SRX240 running 11.1R2.3, and occasionally I have to add new policies.
The obvious choice would seem to be use the
Hi,
Have you defined a security policy from and to the zone of the interface?
(Or is it running in packet mode?)
Which JunOS?
Thanks,
Jed
Sent from a small screen.
On 2/05/2013 2:31 AM, Bruce Buchanan bbuch...@nexicomgroup.net wrote:
Hi List –
** **
Can anyone give any
Insert doesn't create it, it re-orders existing policies. IMHO it's
confusingly named.
So you create the policy using set (which puts it at the end) then you use
insert to re-order it in the position you want.
On May 1, 2013 8:32 AM, James S. Smith jsm...@windmobile.ca wrote:
I have an SRX240
Apologies, my mail client was showing the date it received this, not when
it was originally posted.
Thanks,
Jed.
Sent from a small screen.
On 2/05/2013 6:40 AM, Jed Laundry jlaun...@jlaundry.com wrote:
Hi,
Have you defined a security policy from and to the zone of the interface?
(Or is it
What is the media management interface of which you speak?
Do you mean a Layer 3 / IP interface on the router itself? I ask because
you mention a management VLAN as being part of the trunk.
It's not clear what's breaking here for you.
Cheers,
jof
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Ala' Amira
TFTP is supported but deprecated as it says.
I wouldn't necessarily use this regularly in production as its hidden for a
reason :)
On 22 October 2010 13:23, Bruce Buchanan bbuch...@nexicomgroup.net wrote:
Hi Everyone,
** **
Does anyone know if the SRX100 can act as a local TFTP
It is needed to have dual control links.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Altaf Ahmad aah...@bmc.com.sa wrote:
Hi Experts,
** **
I did configure the clustering of SRX 3400 chassis without installing
SRX3K-CRM Module and it went successful. Could anyone please let tell me
that then
You'll need a hairpin rule eg:
set security policies from-zone trust to-zone trust policy hairpin match
source-address any
set security policies from-zone trust to-zone trust policy hairpin match
destination-address any
set security policies from-zone trust to-zone trust policy hairpin match
I've found the insert and similar commands often get confused as to what
you mean and where unless you move into the hierarchy closest to where
you're working first by doing edit security policies from-zone it_staff
to-zone untrust then doing your insert X before Y statement from that part
of the
From past experience Dnat with transparent proxy will not work very nicely, if
at all. you want to route through the proxy and not forward the connections to
the proxy
If your proxy is squid or nix based you can do some packet magic but if you
dont have access to the os layer (as it be the
Is something funny going on with the mailing list? I sent this original email
2 years ago.
Also saw a bunch of other emails get sent out that people had sent from 2009
and 2010
From: Michael Loftis [mailto:mlof...@wgops.com]
Sent: May-01-13 10:28 AM
To: James S. Smith
Cc:
Shouldn't be a problem.
Depending on the version of Junos make sure you don't have any port mirroring
configured, there is a bug where sflow and port mirroring are configured it
will crash the switch. Fixed in recent versions though.
From: juniper-nsp
The CRM module is just to allow you to have 2 control links. ALl it is a
long winded way of giving the control plane another interface We would use
these for resiliency and redundancy on the control plane.
We already have this resiliency in the data plane cos we have more than one
member
Is this a test?
Usable IPs are .0 and .1, no broadcast and no net address
Mike
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Murphy, Jay, DOH
jay.mur...@state.nm.uswrote:
10.8.0.1/31 What are the useable IPs. What is the broadcast and network
address in this subnetwork?
** **
Thanks.
On Thursday, May 02, 2013 01:16:27 PM Jared Mauch wrote:
Yes, everything is now unstuck now. Some lists had
messages going back to at least 2008 come 'unstuck' when
I poked at mailman yesterday. At one point there were
at least 40k outbound messages waiting to be delivered.
Two themes I
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM, ryanL ryan.lan...@gmail.com wrote:
i'm guessing this is a buffer thing, but i can't explain why it only
happens on my 1ge ports and not when i punt the traffic over an 10ge
Yes, it is a buffer thing. A 10GE interface is basically never going
to not have time to
On 5/2/13 10:27 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM, ryanL ryan.lan...@gmail.com wrote:
i'm guessing this is a buffer thing, but i can't explain why it only
happens on my 1ge ports and not when i punt the traffic over an 10ge
Yes, it is a buffer thing. A 10GE interface is
On Thursday, May 2, 2013, Benny Amorsen wrote:
joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com javascript:; writes:
There's literally no options in between. so a 1/10Gb/s TOR like the
force10 s60 might have 2GB of shared packet buffer, while an like an
arista 7050s-64 would have 9MB for all the ports,
On 5/2/13 1:24 PM, Benny Amorsen wrote:
joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com writes:
There's literally no options in between. so a 1/10Gb/s TOR like the
force10 s60 might have 2GB of shared packet buffer, while an like an
arista 7050s-64 would have 9MB for all the ports, assuming you run it
as all
I was finally able to get this explained via a third party who designs
these things ...
Basically in SF you have an input and output queue, per port. When
port 1 sends to port 2 frames are moved from 1's input queue to 2's
output queue. If 2's out queue fills, it blocks back into 1's input
39 matches
Mail list logo
