On (2013-09-25 08:29 +1000), Luca Salvatore wrote:
This concerns me a little. I'M about to take a full table on a MX5.
Is it only an issue when the adjacencyis lost and we need to receive the
table again or will performance of the entire box be affected?
For what it's worth we're running
Hi Ben,
Thanx!
We'll play with it :)
Maarten
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Ben Dale [mailto:bd...@comlinx.com.au]
Verzonden: dinsdag 24 september 2013 9:16
Aan: Maarten van der Hoek
CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Onderwerp: Re: [j-nsp] SRX Command
Just blew the dust off it and it
On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:27:48 AM Graham Brown
wrote:
I've run into a very strange bug on the MX where PPP
through a VPLS results in the packets being mangled -
affected circuits have been migrated to L2VPNs. Although
a fix is provided in 12.3R4 which we are currently
testing -
Yes but I do not want that the entire device do not partecipate to the routing
OSPF domain, just for few networks...
Do you have an example of that ?
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:33:40 -0700
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Junos ospf question
From: ipv6fre...@gmail.com
To: dim0...@hotmail.com
CC:
What I described only happens in convergence scenarios.
Amos
Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Sep 2013, at 02:21, Luca Salvatore
l...@ninefold.commailto:l...@ninefold.com wrote:
This concerns me a little. I'M about to take a full table on a MX5.
Is it only an issue when the adjacencyis lost and we
I understood the same and I need to be able to drop network announcement in a
very granular way...
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Junos ospf question
From: p...@westerlund.se
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:59:43 +0200
CC: ipv6fre...@gmail.com; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
To: dim0...@hotmail.com
I
Can you give some more details? I'm not sure I understand all of your
requirements.
Are you trying to influence something native to OSPF, or are you talking about
setting metrics for routes redistributed (Cisco-speak) from another protocol?
/Per
25 sep 2013 kl. 10:09 skrev R S
basically I've a triangulation A - B - C - A
single area 0
A-B link is 10Gbs
A-C and B-C is 1 Gbs
since in A-B run a very high volume of traffic (storage), I do not want if A-B
fails this traffic goes through C
C redistribute as well statics into OSPF
Hope it clear now
Subject: Re: [j-nsp]
Seems doable to me, so long as there are prefixes for both the storage
gear hanging off of router A and B. If, for example, your storage
gear hanging off of B is using a default route to reach the gear off
of A, then you can't do it.
Add a term to your applicable OSPF import policy on all three
I don't think overload-mode is what you want.
I used it once before I realized the consequences. It will, as i says in the
docs, put itself into the mode I cannot really be used for transit traffic any
more, only send me traffic for my directly attached networks.
This is an OSPF setting (in
There is no default route
could you paste a config example explaining in simple words what you mean ?
I need that same native OSPF of A and B do not transit to C if link A-B goes
down
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 01:51:31 -0700
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Junos ospf question
From: j...@thejof.com
To:
I'm thinking the answer is not ospf magic, but rather some form of QoS policy
on the 1Gig link, or even an ACL to selectively slow/block your specific high
throughput networks.
Brad
On 25/09/2013, at 18:09, R S dim0...@hotmail.com wrote:
basically I've a triangulation A - B - C - A
I thought about and ACL but it's a very last escape...
I'd prefer TCP storage session is not attracted at all...
From: brad...@internode.com.au
To: dim0...@hotmail.com
CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Junos ospf question
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:18:49 +
I'm
First let me see if I understand you correctly by rephrasing.
- Three sites A, B och C all connected with direct links
- Link A-B has high capacity
- Links A-C and B-C has lower capacity
- High volume storage traffic traverses link A-B and must not use links A-C or
B-C, even if link A-B goes
Don't include the storage networks in ospf - and the static route those
networks on a to b and on b to a...
Sent from a mobile device
On 25 Sep 2013, at 19:11, R S dim0...@hotmail.com wrote:
There is no default route
could you paste a config example explaining in simple words what you
indeed I make it simpler
- network is already running with ospf (very sensite traffic)
- the concept is A-C-B-A as you correctly understood, but there are between A
and B 4 links with 4 big MXs on each side and on C there are two different big
SRX, hence topology is not so easier
- traffic
Hi -
we're currently discussing how to connect a new location to our current
server rooms (I'm hesitant to use the term datacenter as we're talking
two locations with about 20 sparsely populated racks each - containing
the usual enterprise stuff - unsorted application servers, VMware hosts,
As you say you have 4x MXs, I assume there are two at site A and the other 2
sites have one each.
Your networks would be something like:
10.a.0.0/16
10.b.0.0/16
10.c.0.0/16
10.a .0.0 and 10.b.0.0 both have a couple of subnets which are being used for
storage systems...
let us assume -
I think I know one way to do it.
Multi-topology routing to the rescue!
With MT-routing we can have one topology with only sites A and B and all their
routers and routes/prefixes, and another topology with sites A, B and C and
everything (just like today). On ingress, you classify and assign
Hey folks,
Another OSPF issue for the day: I have a somewhat specific need to match a
route from a particular OSPF speaker in an aggregate policy, and I'm not
having much luck coming up with a straightforward way to do so.
The route in question is injected via a type 5 LSA from a (dumb)
all --
just a quick reachout. trying to dig through docs and either missing the boat
or it doesn't exist. either way…
i need to know if the srx240 supports the frame-relay standard t1.606. any
pointers/links would be appreciated.
thanks!
q.
--
quinn snyder
snyd...@gmail.com
21 matches
Mail list logo
