Re: [j-nsp] Advertisement of VRRP IP in an EVPN with IRB setup

Am 25.05.2020 16:22, schrieb Roger Wiklund: Hi Why are you using VRRP instead of Virtual Gateway Address? https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/virtual-gateway-address-edit-interfaces.html Hi Roger, i didn't know this feature before.

[j-nsp] Advertisement of VRRP IP in an EVPN with IRB setup

Hello, i'm trying to setup a multihomed EVPN with IRB and VRRP (see configuration below). I know, that i could omit VRRP configuration and use the same IP on irb interfaces of the participating PE routers for next-hop redundancy. But from an operational perspective, i find it useful to have a

Re: [j-nsp] Rate selectability on MPC7E-MRATE

Many thanks Charlie. It seems that calculation doesn't belong to my main skills ;-) Please forgot my questions... Regards, Alex 14x 10 = 140 2x 1C = 200 total 340 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] Rate selectability on MPC7E-MRATE

Okay, i tried with "number-of-ports" on pic-level instead. But unfortunately, "number-of-sub-ports 2" is ignored now fpc 5 { pic 0 { pic-mode 100G; } pic 1 { number-of-ports 5; port 1 { number-of-sub-ports 2; } } } Are 100g ports only

[j-nsp] Rate selectability on MPC7E-MRATE

Hi, we have some MX-Routers (MX480 and MX960) with MPC7E-MRATE linecards. As far as i know, one PFE supports 240G each. Is it possible to use both 100G ports and in addititon 14x 10G ports on a single PFE ? With the following configuration, i got an error "FPC 5 PIC 1 Invalid port profile

Re: [j-nsp] Manually creating a static route (or access route) in a DHCP dynamic subscriber management environment

I suspect it is because there is no IFL for the subscriber only flow Okay, that sounds plausible. but take a look on https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/routing-services-edit-dynamic-profiles-interfaces.html It might help

[j-nsp] Manually creating a static route (or access route) in a DHCP dynamic subscriber management environment

Hello, does anyone know, if it is possible to manually configure a static route (or access route) with a next-hop assigned to a demux logical interface in a DHCP dynamic subscriber management setup ? I know, that the common way to route a subnet to a subscriber is by assigning the specific

Re: [j-nsp] Running MX480 without craft interface

It is. https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/concept/mx480-fru-overview.html

[j-nsp] Running MX480 without craft interface

Hello, i have to upgrade some router chassis from MX240 to MX480. Therefore i bought some MX480 spare chassis with high-capacity fantrays and additional power-suplies. I erroneously assumed, that the MX480 craft interface is included in the spare chassis, but unfortunately it wasn't and had

Re: [j-nsp] Set 802.1p bits for DHCP packets generated from the routing-engine

Hi Saku, On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 14:24, Alex D. wrote: Hey Alex, i tried that, but as mentioned, it didn't work. For testing purposes, i configured a "log all" as first term: term log-all-re-traffic { then log; } DHCP packets from routing-engine to the DHCP-server and DHCP pa

Re: [j-nsp] Set 802.1p bits for DHCP packets generated from the routing-engine

Hi Saku, You should be able to set forwarding-class for inject packets through lo0.0 egress filter. Rewrite filter on interface would then set appropriate CoS bits. i tried that, but as mentioned, it didn't work. For testing purposes, i configured a "log all" as first term: term

[j-nsp] Set 802.1p bits for DHCP packets generated from the routing-engine

Hello, we use Dynamic subscriber management with DHCP on MX platform with JUNOS 15.1R6.7. The MX is acting as a DHCP-relay (proxy-mode). While troubleshooting, i noticed, that all DHCP packets generated from the routing-engine are given an 802.1p value of 110 (6). RE outbound-traffic is

Re: [j-nsp] Licenses needed for inline J-Flow

Hmmm, I just recently turned on inline jflow on my mpc7e-mrate in a MX960, and I don’t think I did anything with a license. Aaron Hi Aaron, that's correct. It works without installing a license. As Nick stated, they're trust-based. Regards, Alex On Nov 7, 2018, at 3:49 PM, Alex D. wrote

[j-nsp] Licenses needed for inline J-Flow

Hi, i would like to use inline J-Flow on MX480 routers with a mix of MPC2E-NG and MPC7E-MRATE. I found the following licenses that might fit: S-JFLOW-CH-MX480 S-ACCT-JFLOW-CHASSIS S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN I'm wondering which license i have to buy ? Can someone explain the differences ? Regards,

Re: [j-nsp] EVPN with IRB and static routing

Hi Peter, With disabling CNH for evpn you decouple L2 and L3 for evpn routes, therefore the PE which receives an ARP for on specific host on that LAN segment has to export this host route. as proposed, i exported host routes with an additional term in my policy: term evpn-host-routes {

Re: [j-nsp] EVPN with IRB and static routing

Hi Peter What is the status of the route on PE2? The route is "active" and is falsely reacheable via the local irb.1002 a.b.c.d/n *[Static/5] 3d 01:33:57, tag 104 > to x.x.x.x via irb.1002 > show route forwarding-table destination a.b.c.d Is it "hold"? Yes it is "hold". Destination

Re: [j-nsp] EVPN with IRB and static routing

Hi Nitzan, here's a diagramm which shows my current setup: +--+ |MPLS CORE | +--+ | | | | +---+ +---+ |P1 | |P2 | +---+ +---+ | |

[j-nsp] EVPN with IRB and static routing

Hello, in our core network, we have an EVPN with IRB setup on 2 MX480. JUNOS is 17.3R1-S1.6. Here are the relevant parts of my configuration: routing-instance: EVPN_TEST { instance-type virtual-switch; route-distinguisher x.x.x.x:1002; vrf-target target:1002:10; protocols {

Re: [j-nsp] Subscriber Management with RADIUS authentication question

Hello Alex, You use the delete-binding-on-renegotiation statement to override the default action, and to specify that DHCP tear down the existing matching client entry and to process the message as a new client entry.

[j-nsp] Subscriber Management with RADIUS authentication question

Hi, i have a running Subscriber Management setup in my testlab with Juniper MX5 running JUNOS15.1R6.7. MX is functioning as DHCP proxy and forwards all DHCP requests to an external DHCP server after successful authentication against a RADIUS server based on DHCP Option 82 remote-id. RADIUS

Re: [j-nsp] Output filter on discard interface doesn't work as expected

Am 13.03.2017 15:01, schrieb Michael Hare: Any more details on platform or version you can share? I'm doing this on MPC4 in 14.1 with no issues. I first tested my setup with a virtualized olive, but in the meanwhile i also tried my configuration on MX240 with DPCE running JUNOS 12.3.R8.7 and

Re: [j-nsp] Output filter on discard interface doesn't work as expected

Am 10.03.2017 16:27, schrieb Karsten Thomann: Hi, Already tried to set the firewall filter as input on dsc.0? Yes, i already tried that. Also no success. According to the Juniper documentation, it definitely must be applied as an output filter. Regards, Alex

[j-nsp] Output filter on discard interface doesn't work as expected

Hi, i have a problem with my firewall filter bound to a discard interface dsc.0 in a quite simple RTBH setup... I receive a bgp route with a next-hop ip 192.0.2.101 which is configured on a discard interface. Blackholing works as expected, means that traffic coming in from a directly

Re: [j-nsp] MPC2E NG doesn't come online with SCBE2 and JUNOS 14.1R6.4

Am 08.02.2016 13:06, schrieb Ola Thoresen: On 08. feb. 2016 12:57, Alex D. wrote: Hi, i currently have a problem that my newly purchased MPC2E NG doesn't come online with JTAC recommended JUNOS 14.1R6.4 in an MX240 chassis with SCBE2. You probably have to install the JAM-software. http

[j-nsp] MPC2E NG doesn't come online with SCBE2 and JUNOS 14.1R6.4

Hi, i currently have a problem that my newly purchased MPC2E NG doesn't come online with JTAC recommended JUNOS 14.1R6.4 in an MX240 chassis with SCBE2. show chassis fpc states: Temp CPU Utilization (%) MemoryUtilization (%) Slot State(C) Total

[j-nsp] Port-Mirroring on auto-configuration interfaces

Hi guys, does anybody know if it’s possible to setup a port-mirror for autoconfiguration-interfaces or do i need an externel tap device ? Here’s the configuration of ge-1/0/3 where i would like to see all input- and output-traffic (for all VLANs). Dynamic profiles are attached below MX240

Re: [j-nsp] chassisd[1299]: %DAEMON-3: rtslib: ERROR Failed to allocate new block of size 16384

the failed to allocate message? Thanks, Morgan On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Alex D. listensamm...@gmx.de mailto:listensamm...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, since yesterday, i see the following syslog messages from several M10i running JUNOS 10.4R8.5: chassisd[1299]: %DAEMON-3: rtslib

Re: [j-nsp] chassisd[1299]: %DAEMON-3: rtslib: ERROR Failed to allocate new block of size 16384

Hi Siva, yes i am using CFEB. Many thanks for pointing me out to PR718652. I think i will upgrade all M10i running 10.4R8.5 to the currently recommended JUNOS release (12.3R6.6 i think) Regards, Alex Am 11.07.2014 14:58, schrieb MSusiva: Hi Alex, Are you using CFEB on this node? You might

[j-nsp] chassisd[1299]: %DAEMON-3: rtslib: ERROR Failed to allocate new block of size 16384

Hi, since yesterday, i see the following syslog messages from several M10i running JUNOS 10.4R8.5: chassisd[1299]: %DAEMON-3: rtslib: ERROR Failed to allocate new block of size 16384 This message occurs in irregular intervals and doesn't result in routing issues. Does anybody know what it

[j-nsp] MX-Series supported transceivers

Hi, one of our customers has some SFP+ transceiver (Part-No 750-028392) on stock. He tries to plug them in his MX80, but show chassis hardware declares them as UNSUPPORTED Does anybody now if these transceivers are supported at all on MX80 hardware with MIC-3D-20GE ? The MX is running JUNOS

[j-nsp] Fwd: Re: MX-Series supported transceivers

Hi Chuck, BTW, Part-No 750-028392 is the MIC-3D-20GE, not the transceiver. Part-No. was wrong. Sorry, reading error. Correct No. is 740-031981 It could possibly work if the MIC-3D-20GE supports dual-rate transceivers in 1gig mode, and if the SFP+ is a dual-rate transceiver. that's

Re: [j-nsp] proposed changes to clear bgp neighbor

+1 I fully support this change. Regards, Alex Am 26.02.2014 16:36, schrieb Phil Shafer: Juniper users, We've been asked to make a change the clear bgp neighbor command to make the neighbor or all argument mandatory. The root cause is the severe impact of clear bgp neighbor and the increasing

[j-nsp] Double-Tagging on MX-Series

Hi guys, i want to terminate customer services on our MX80. Every customer is mapped to a dedicated S-VLAN. C-VLANs are service-specific and IDs are identical for every customer. Example: ge-0/1/0 flexible-vlan-tagging; -- S-VLAN 10 (= Custoner #1) -- C-VLAN 701 -- family inet

Re: [j-nsp] Double-Tagging on MX-Series

[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Josh Hoppes Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:21 PM To: Alex D. Cc:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Double-Tagging on MX-Series http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.3/topics/usage-guidelines/interfaces-binding-a-vlan-id

[j-nsp] Flow-Taps on MX80-48t

Hi guys, is it possible to use flow-taps for lawful interception on MX80-48t ? Does it require a MS-MIC-16G ? Thanks in advance... Regards, Alex ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] MX-80 as a BRAS and as a LAC

Am 19.10.2013 21:44, schrieb Enoch Nyatoti: Hello, I am new to Juniper hence my request. We would like to deploy BRAS and LAC functionality on MX80 routers to existing Cisco NAS and I was wondering if you could give me a lead on how to configure these features in Junos including the relevant

[j-nsp] /kernel: %KERN-6: MTU for ff02::0005 reduced to 1500

Hi list, i manually set IPv6 mtu to 1500 on M- an MX-Series routers running JunOS 10.4R8.5 After configuration, following message appears in syslog: /kernel: %KERN-6: MTU for ff02::0005 reduced to 1500 Is it a problem or why does the router inform about the change ? Whith manually set IPv4

[j-nsp] IPv6 firewall filter for Route-Engine protection

Hello guys, i try to build a basic inet6 firewall filter for Route-Engine protection on Juniper MX80 running JUNOS 10.4R8.5. It seems that there is no support for protocol match in from statement. Is there actually no possibility for protocol match (e.g. tcp, udp, ospf3) or do i forget

[j-nsp] aggregated-ethernet and metric adjustment, if one link fails

Hi list, is it possible to automatically raise IS-IS metric, if one or more link(s) of an aggregated-ethernet fails ? Exp.: We have an aggregated-ethernet interface with 2x 1Gbps. Our IS-IS metric for this interface is 50. Metric for a single Gigabit interface is 100. It would be nice, if

[j-nsp] Installation of jweb on MX80 fails

Hello, i have a Juniper MX80 running JUNOS 10.4R6.5. I installed the domestic version jinstall-ppc-10.4R6.5-domestic-signed.tgz with ssh daemon. Now i tried to install package jweb-10.4R6.5-signed.tgz, but while validation i got the following error: Web management gatekeeper process: mgd:

Re: [j-nsp] Installation of jweb on MX80 fails

I didn't know that jweb isn't supported on MX80 with JUNOS 11.3/11.4. I will try it with one of these releases eventually in our test lab. Thanks for your help. Regards, Alex Am 27.09.2011 21:39, schrieb Kevin Shymkiw: What if you try 11.3 or 11.4? I know it wasn't supported in the MX80

Re: [j-nsp] External routes in OSPF database

You only show 14k external LSA's in the database which is much smaller than full BGP feed. Yes, that was only a snapshot. As i mentioned in my post, quantity of routes increases up to ~360k routes, as i saw in my first try. But in my posted example, for security reasons, i shut down neighbor

[j-nsp] JUNOS upgrade to 10.4R4.5 on M10i

Hello folks, i want to upgrade a M10i (with RE-850 installed) to JUNOS 10.4R4.5. When i try to install the software, i get the following error: alex@test request system software add /var/tmp/jinstall-10.4R4.5-domestic-signed.tgz no-validate WARNING: Package jinstall-10.4R4.5-domestic-signed

Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS upgrade to 10.4R4.5 on M10i

install a package with version 7.4 or higher. Which version did you use ? Regards, alex I had this problem today actually and went from 9.3 to 10.0 and then 10.4. I think there was a bulletin about it. Too lazy to look :) -Michael On 7/11/2011 3:52 PM, Alex D. wrote: Hello folks, i want

Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS upgrade to 10.4R4.5 on M10i

Problem solved I installed 9.3R3.8 and then upgraded to 10.4R4.5 Thanks for your help. Regards, alex From the 10.0 release notes: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.0/information-products/topic-collections/release-notes/10/topic-39004.html Basic Procedure for Upgrading to

[j-nsp] External routes in OSPF database

Hello, we have a MPLS enabled backbone with about 30 routers. IS-IS is used as IGP. All routers have iBGP sessions with our two route-reflectors and get BGP full-feed from them. Now i try to setup OSPF with area 0.0.0.0 for connecting customers to one of our PE routers (running JUNOS

Re: [j-nsp] External routes in OSPF database

Thanks for the replies. You should upgrade as soon as possible if your hardware supports it. Hardware is M10i and software upgrade is already on schedule. On our new MX240, i use 10.4R4.5. I still have to do some testing, before i upgrade production routers. One might also ask - why not