Simple - but did you turn on the laser?
On Jan 29, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Dave Peters - Terabit Systems
wrote:
Hi all--
New to this particular MIC. I've got two Juniper MX480s running RE-S-1800x4s
with 15.1R7.9 on SCBE2s with MPC3E cards, and I'm trying to use
MIC3-3D-1X100GE-CXP with CXP-100GBA
Even different Juniper models have slightly diferent form factors. I have both
1GE and Tri-rate sfps from Juniper and they are different
On Dec 5, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Aaron Gould wrote:
We *carefully* tried copper sfp's above and below each other in ACX5048 and
it's ok.
Perhaps there are other
Go with MX104
Form factor much better. nothing on the back, have option for second RE if
desired, RE is slightly better, 2 more MIC slots, cost is generally less on 104
than 80, if using ay 10G then it for sure should be, and if I remember correct
104 is quieter, but have not played on 80 for s
VC can be configured on any optical port, not jsut the dedicated on the rear.
On Jul 16, 2017, at 10:17 AM, Victor Sudakov wrote:
Roger Wiklund wrote:
>> There is a ring of EX4200 switches, please look at
>> http://noc.sibptus.ru/jun1.png
>>
>> If MUX1 fails, the MSTP topology adjusts and the
The ACX has many more MPLS and CE features compared to the QFX.
On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
Besides port count and expansion modules, what is the main differences
between these three Juniper switches (actually Juniper has the ACX under
their router section on their website
Same options are also available on MX104.
MIC slots and SFP+ ports are enabled by license.
Both platforms have same capabilities and are rated at 80G. The license does
NOT affect this as some think.
RE on MX104 is slightly better than MX80.
Also the MX104 has redundant replaceable RE and the MX
More memory and cpu for higher scale
New mid range qos support
lower cost
My top differences
Check with your Juiper team for the complete list
On Oct 13, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Hi folks,
I’m wondering what is the actual difference between these two (other than the
fact th
Components in the MX240/480 are all identical. The 480 just has physically
larger chassis and 2 more power supplies.
If these are in a controlled environment and do not require NEBS, ie temp will
NOT exceed 40c, then use a recent version of code and use the new power knobs
to get the most power
Dear Experts,
Can you please explain what happen let say when MX-480 routers or ACX-1100
reach it maximum operational temperature (I believe around 65 degrees
Celsius). Will it shut down it's chassis when this happen? What happen when
the temperature become normal again?
Regards,
MPX support inline flow on Trio. Not as flexible but possible.
On Jul 22, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
We would be getting redundant (2) RE-2000's with redundant (2) standard
SCB's.
The configuration would be full BGP tables with 4 providers on 10G ports.
The MS-DCP is a requirement f
correct.
On Jul 22, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
Eventhough the RE-2000 is going into EOL status, it is still faster and has
more memory than the RE's in the MX80 or MX104 right?
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Jerry Jones wrote:
The RE-2000 and SCB have been announced EOL for
The RE-2000 and SCB have been announced EOL for next year.
On Jul 22, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
I am considering buying a used MX480. It will have the following:
1x MX480-PREMIUM-AC - MX480 Base system with redundant RE-2000, SCB, and AC
power
2x DPCE-R-4XGE-XFP - 4x10GE Enhance
Generally we use the MX80 numbers for the 104. Though the 104 is slightly
better than an 80.
On Apr 20, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Mike Williams wrote:
Hey all,
There was a discussion May last year about the MX104 and BGP performance.
With the take away being that the MX104 RE is still pretty weak, at
Should be able to handle the tables ok. The RE will not support 64 bit though.
When 32 disappears is when you will have issues.
As long as DPC are the only line cards should work well. I am reluctant to mix
with MPC in a single chassis.
On Oct 20, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Johan Borch wrote:
Hi!
I'm
My favorite place to go and find out if a feature is available for any platform
vs release is the feature explorer. It really does a nice quick job and
produces a nice savable output
http://pathfinder.juniper.net/feature-explorer/
On May 1, 2014, at 2:15 AM, Victor Sudakov wrote:
Colleagues,
You'd only get the confirmation if you didn't type the word 'all'. I don't
get this superiority complex. Most gear has a message like this when you
reboot it. Haven't seen anyone complain about that.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Eric Van Tol wrote:
> > > *THWACK* THIS IS NOT WINDOWS.
> >
>
Just add a line "Reset all bgp sessions? [Y/N]" for confirmation.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Eric Van Tol wrote:
> > it's a nice-to-have, maybe? but this sounds more like an opportunity for
> > you to sell some JNCIA courses. i mean, how long has junos been around
> > now?
>
> Confusing c
If memory serves - which may be doubtful - those phones used a different wiring
scheme so I would not think any Juniper switch would work.
On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Robert Hass wrote:
I have some older pre-standard PoE IP Phones (it's NOT 802.1af) from Cisco:
7940
7912
Will Juniper EX2200,
JUNOS has no TP specific features, all OAM is available
dwdm systems normally use an osc for management
On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Yham wrote:
Hi Friends,
I am trying to read about mpls-tp oam features that look probably the key
reason that lead service provider to deploy it.
Someone please
an SRX over those.
I do hear good stuff about Checkpoint.
On Nov 24, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Jerry Jones wrote:
No comparison with checkpoint.
But Space is a framework. Yes you can purchase an appliance to run it on or
just download the vm. In fact you can download the vm and play with for 30 days
No comparison with checkpoint.
But Space is a framework. Yes you can purchase an appliance to run it on or
just download the vm. In fact you can download the vm and play with for 30 days
free.
To manage SRX you would use Security Director, a component of Space. You can
download and try it also
Yes you need the Q flavor to do per clan or HQOS
Whether you require an MPC1/2/etc depends on the interfaces you need
An MPC1 will support up to 2 MIC with 20 afp, or 2 XFP, or one each. If you
require higher bandwidth then look at the MPC2
I would also go with an MPC1E instead of an MPC1
Also
Depends a lot of which flavor you have with what memory
This RE came with either 246M or 768M of memory and an 80MB flash
Note: For M-series, MX-series, and T-series routing platforms, the CompactFlash
card memory requirement for JUNOS software Release 9.0 is 1 GB. For M7i and
M10i routing plat
Yes you can deploy as standalone, and be ready for fabric later if desired.
On Sep 3, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Robert Hass wrote:
Hi
I'm looking for 1U switch with minimum 48x10GE SFP+ and 2x40GE QSFP.
I see than QFX3500 can do all what I need - can this switch work alone
without rest elements of Q-Fa
>From the JNCIA study guide
When you examine the output closely, you might notice that some command options
are pre- ceded with a character—either an angle bracket (>) or a plus sign (+).
These characters, as well as their absence, carry a special meaning when you
use the set command.
The angl
is the
condition of LEDs?
I assume you have done at least one commit on each switch?
On Jul 4, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Nick Kritsky wrote:
Jerry,
Most annoying thing - it does not provide redundant power to the switches. I
could live with other problems, but this one is kind of a deal breaker
Only gotcha I have heard of is to use the center slot for the first power
supply.
What specifically is it not doing?
On Jul 4, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Nick Kritsky wrote:
Hello all,
Is anyone here who has experience with EX-RPS - redundant power supply for
EX switches?
I'd like to ask some questio
On Jul 2, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Morgan McLean wrote:
Any good aggregation switch suggestions? Juniper is doesn't provide good
ports for $ in the switching realmcustomer balked at the cost for a
four port 40G blade on a 9200. Might check out brocade..
If you want to remain Juniper what about th
If memory serves it is more like 64k
On May 3, 2013, at 6:47 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 5/3/13 3:26 PM, John pp wrote:
> hey all,
>
> what is the max amt of vlans on an mx480 (4k?)
> some people have said 16k but i am unsure
> some clarification would be great
it used to be 16k per PFE, I'm su
I think you need to specifically use the tri-state SFPs for this to work
SFP-1GE-FE-E-T SFP capable of support 10/100/1000 speeds
On May 10, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Keith wrote:
Trying to connect GE copper SFP on MX to a 100meg port on a cisco switch, 3560
actually.
ge-0/0/2 {
description
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? These are fresh out
of the box with no initial configuration. Thanks!
I believe the J replacement is/will be the SRX.
The MX is a tremendous platform.
On Apr 28, 2013, at 2:49 PM, James Howlett wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thank You very much for the clarification. I will have only one ASBR. As for
redundancy I'll go with a single 1400 unit and add a second in the future.
Good, you cannot run UTM on the data center SRX at the moment, branch only.
On Apr 27, 2013, at 12:55 PM, James Howlett wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for the heads-up
> Srx's have replication issues with large routing environments. Duplicating
> two full feeds to the redundant peer will take a looo
Also, you can do "then next-hop discard" in your policy and you won't need
the static route.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:14:39AM -0500, Eric Krichbaum wrote:
> > Thanks everyone. The policy straight to discard works for me, just
> a
Some platforms such as the ACX do support pulling down their config over the net
On Apr 12, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Jed Laundry wrote:
Hey,
On the SRX you can use a USB drive with autoinstall.conf:
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB23882
On the other platforms you can do an
Is there not a free SDK for developing on the RE?
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.2/topics/concept/sdk-applications-overview.html
On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:16 AM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 04:12:19PM +0400, Nick Kritsky wrote:
> This rises the question that is mo
It is for timing.
On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:01 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
Hey All,
Does anybody know what the XE XFP socket on the SCBE-MX for? I cannot find any
documentation about it anywhere.
It's on the end of the card next to the clock interface.
--
Leigh
per system? I mean if I put several big prefix lists and
apply an accept/drop actions on them will it be possible to have a total of a
few thousand entries?
Thanx in advance
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Jerry Jones wrote:
Hi Emil,
This will be different for each model. Most are in the
Well sorta - if you have MX.
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/software/network-optimization-services/intelligent-traffic-load-balancing/#overview
On Oct 24, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Frank Sweetser wrote:
>
> I don't believe tha
I have heard it is still quite aways out yet. I too wish they had it as it is
the nonredundant platform so would be nice.
On Oct 22, 2012, at 6:49 AM, Riccardo S wrote:
Does anybody knows if there is a chance to have soon available the virtual
chassis feature on MX5 - MX80 ?
As far as I u
Number of 10G ports just knocked the CER out of consideration for a customer of
mine.
Also if you want to do any services such as BRAS which many 7200 are used for,
then Juniper is a clear winner.
On Oct 21, 2012, at 8:55 PM, Skeeve Stevens
wrote:
Hey all,
I have a customer asking us about
Yes some do their limiting at the DSLAM or OLT.
However, why transport traffic just to drop it? I generally use an MX as a BRAS
and shape there.
On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Chris Evans wrote:
Question for you service provider folks. How do cable modems, dsl, ftth,
etc limit bandwidth? I bel
I believe you have one of the fixed configuration boxes which are different
than the fully modular boxes, those do have additional capabilities such as
h-qos
Would suspect diferent minimum codes based on that
On Mar 22, 2012, at 12:16 AM, Timh Bergström wrote:
Hi,
I recently bought a MX5-T (I
I would be careful the hot air exiting the rear is not sucked back in the
front, if the front is higher. Checkout link for airflow description.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/reference/requirements/mx5-mx10-mx40-mx80-cabinet-requirements.html
On Feb 16, 2
I would be inerested if anyone has used these in an SRX also.
On Feb 8, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Dave hartzell wrote:
Hello,
I have been trying to get a RAD Data Communications Mirici-155 SFP to
work in an MX-series box.
The Mirici-155 is an SFP-compatible OC-3 plug-able optic that "looks
and feels"
The T version is copper only. The DC version is modular.
On Nov 18, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Kevin Wormington wrote:
I'm looking at the above two MX bundles and other than timing support on the
MX5 they seem to have the same specs. Is there something that I'm missing?
Does anyone on the list know
Looks like JUniper issued a note today on this.
PSN-2011-09-380
On Sep 20, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Juniper GOWEX wrote:
Hi Experts,
The attributes problems have appearedagain:
/Sep 19 20:46:43 router1.net LEV[2625]: bgp_path_attr_error: NOTIFICATION
sent to 149.X.X.X (External AS XXX): code
Mine here at home has been working well, with the internal ADSL2.
Only initial issue I had were the dumb MTU and MSS defaults.
Only time it gets rebooted is when I pull the wrong cord
Now I need to fix DDNS. Had it working on 10.1, but 10.4 and 11.x break it
again.
On Sep 1, 2011, at 1:0
48 matches
Mail list logo
