We try to keep IPv4 and IPv6 configuration always distinct from each
other, where possible. Thus, not mixing v4 and v6 peerings in the same
groups. This kind of ships in the night approach makes it much more
comfortable to operate the network as it minimizes the risk that changes
related to one
On Jun 29, 2018, at 8:49 AM, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
>
> Just wondering what's the latest on the GPU for packet forwarding front (or
> is that deemed legacy now)?
Waiting for the bare-metal version of this to land (you can test it on AWS
right now):
Hi, thanks for adding to this.
I've just removed the loops statement in there to see what would happen. It
seems to me like the AS number in routing-options is pretty much the source
of the looping trigger that occurs (the addition of a second internal AS to
the path).
Everything works well and
Hi,
As far as the saying goes : divide to conquer !
Best regards.
> Le 29 juin 2018 à 23:28, Rolf Hanßen a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> started with a "everything configured separately" network (on
> Cisco/Quagga) but now I prefer both together in one group (started with it
> during a vendor
Hi Alexander,
In our network, inet.0 is AS20965 and IAS.inet.0 is AS21320.
The IAS routing instance contains all commercial routes - public, private,
and upstream peerings.
Between inet.0 and IAS.inet.0 we have logical tunnels with BGP peerings.
The routers are all configured with
Hi,
started with a "everything configured separately" network (on
Cisco/Quagga) but now I prefer both together in one group (started with it
during a vendor replacement (Cisco to Juniper) and new config from scratch
2 years ago).
Because it is easier to handle (shut only one group, do not forget
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Rob Foehl wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Job Snijders wrote:
>
>> For the purpose of inter-domain routing I'd advise against mixing warm
>> mayonnaise and jagermeister. uh.. i mean IPv4 and IPv6.
>>
>> Keeping things separate maybe makes debugging easier.
>
>
> I
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Mark Tinka wrote:
I prefer not to find out whether walking on hot coal will kill all
feeling in my feet, or just numb them for 2hrs :-).
So... Is that a vote for or against, and which one? ;)
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Job Snijders wrote:
For the purpose of inter-domain
For the purpose of inter-domain routing I'd advise against mixing warm
mayonnaise and jagermeister. uh.. i mean IPv4 and IPv6.
Keeping things separate maybe makes debugging easier.
Kind regards,
Job
___
juniper-nsp mailing list
On 29/Jun/18 17:01, Rob Foehl wrote:
> Wondering aloud a bit... I've seen plenty of cases where wedging
> parallel v4/v6 sessions into the same BGP group and letting the router
> sort out which AFI it's supposed to be using on each session works
> fine, and nearly as many where configuring
On 29/Jun/18 17:10, Rob Foehl wrote:
>
> Thanks for the detailed reply, Mark.
>
> By "ancient", I mean boxes still running RE-S-1300s, original SCBs,
> and either DPCs or older MPC2s -- basically, everything EOL except the
> chassis, and running a mix of 1G and 10G interfaces. The limited
Is anyone successfully using GRE tunnels on a QFX10008 running 17.4?
I configured one, and traffic works normally from the control plane,
however data plane traffic seems to just get dropped.
So, ping from the router itself works fine, but it won't actually route
any other traffic over the
On 29 June 2018 at 13:55, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 01:49:46PM +0100, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
>> Just wondering what's the latest on the GPU for packet forwarding front (or
>> is that deemed legacy now)?
>
> Last I've heard is that pixel shaders do not map
On Wed, 27 Jun 2018, Mark Tinka wrote:
But to your question, there is nothing ancient about the MX240. It's just
small. Look at your future needs and consider whether having those 2 line
card slots running the latest-generation Trio chip will scale better than
migrating to the MX204, and that
Wondering aloud a bit... I've seen plenty of cases where wedging parallel
v4/v6 sessions into the same BGP group and letting the router sort out
which AFI it's supposed to be using on each session works fine, and nearly
as many where configuring anything family-specific starts to get ugly
Hello everyone
Thank you so much for your suggestions. The solution in this case is to
remove the autonomous-system statement completely from the routing-instance
routing-options and apply the local-as statement under bgp with the private
knob.
protocols {
bgp {
local-as 456 loops 2
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 01:49:46PM +0100, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> Just wondering what's the latest on the GPU for packet forwarding front (or
> is that deemed legacy now)?
Last I've heard is that pixel shaders do not map really nicely to the
work needed for packet forwarding -
> From: Tails Pipes [mailto:tailsnpi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 5:29 PM
>
> No, things changed there as well. Lookup merchant sillicon, and revise this
> post every 6 months.
Nah
> have you heard of Barefoot networks?
Yes I have heard of barefoot, but have you heard of
Hello,
Does "no-prepend-global-as" help?
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/bgp-local-as-introduction.html
HTH
Thx
Alex
On 29/06/2018 04:58, Aaron Gould wrote:
Use with caution in live environment as I'm going off of some testing I was
recently doing in my
I don't see this issue. Does it only happen when you have a different ASN
inside the VRF?
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:44:07PM -0400, Philippe Girard wrote:
> Grettings
>
> I'm setting up this VRF that hosts the full routing table. I have other
> peerings or remote PEs that import IX routes
20 matches
Mail list logo
