Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

the license from the revoked device. Now as to whether this actually works, especially in all cases, I do not know. Regards, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper

Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper Business Use Only On 1/10/24, 5:10 PM, "Giuliano C. Medalha" wrote: Alexandre, Goodnight. JUNIPER has 2 very power

Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

is actually occurring, I don’t know. I service my customer base like above on an as needed basis. FYI only, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper Business

Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

or nah on hard enforcement. Hopefully this helps, and explains a little of the history of how MX got to where it is today, and beyond. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just

Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

and other vendors. “I don’t make the news, I just report it” For any questions, reach out to either your Juniper Partner or Juniper Account team. FYI Only. Regards, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper QFX5200-32c and QSFP28 channelized optics

Yes. I forgot about that option. Thanks for bringing that up. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper Business Use Only On 1/9/24, 10:47 AM, "Chrizt

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper QFX5200-32c and QSFP28 channelized optics

For 10G support, you need to use a 40G [proper] Optic and channelize this to 4 x 10G. Just FYI. Rih Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper Business Use Only

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 update from 21.4R3-S4 to 21.4R3-S5

d deprecated because of the short RSA key size +MAC algorithm umac-32 - Very uncommon, and deprecated because of the very short MAC length Just FYI. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just r

Re: [j-nsp] QSA adapters and MTU

this. Hopefully this helps some and can clear up some things. I am just the messenger, . . . FYI only, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper Business Use Only

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

to operator feedback, but we would need to give it to them to begin with.” Could not agree more with the above!!! Regards, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

I tried to get my daughter (now Sr at Uni) to look at this field. Her response was, “I don’t want to do anything like what you do”  Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

to function or to be used for testing. In case of testing, Trial/Demo licenses can be cut easily. Just FYI, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper Business Use

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

WPI in Worcester, MA is also looking, as are [too] many others. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper Business Use Only From: J Findley Date: Wednesday

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

A great story for the power of Apstra [in the DC], which is also multi-vendor!! Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper Business Use Only On 10/25/23, 12:48 PM

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

come with end date, usually 60-90 days in the future. I am not 100% sure about expiration for Lab Licenses. FYI Only, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

actually NOT create a BOM or quote, unless some license is associated with the HW. Regards, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper Business Use Only From: Michael

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

No problem. Just FYI, but “Flex License” is often mis-understood within Juniper, never mind outside  Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper Business Use Only

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it Juniper Business Use Only On 10/25/23, 2:01 AM, "Saku Ytti" wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 22:21, Aaron Gould via j

Re: [j-nsp] Configuring of MACsec for three EX4300 Switches

connections. However, many vendors have partial implementations which do have such limitations. Juniper devices' support varies greatly by hardware platform and software versions. On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 8:06 AM Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>>

Re: [j-nsp] Configuring of MACsec for three EX4300 Switches

A to port B -(internal maybe GRE 'might' work. This is not like say IPSec connections. Good luck. Please reply if you find a solution. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report

Re: [j-nsp] Junos OS Evolved

--- Begin Message --- I am thinking (guessing) you will not see EVO on MX for some time. EVO is mainly targeted at Data Center use cases, for which MX is used for DC to DC connectivity, but not as a main stay within any DC. My 2 cents worth. Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 port 1G

, not 1/10 (SFP+). Newer MX modules with 1/10 support shows as -xe only. Hopefully this is clearer. Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 10/9/20, 4:55 PM, &quo

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 port 1G

--- Begin Message --- Thanks. So only SRX/MX use xe only for 1/10 capable interfaces. 40/100 are et. Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 10/9/20, 1:08 PM, &quo

Re: [j-nsp] Junos OS Evolved

--- Begin Message --- I think QFX5200-32C (and some PTX?) are only platforms that have support for both a Junos version and an EVO version. I think once [very hard if not impossible] to change. FYI only Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 port 1G

--- Begin Message --- If link is up, not L1 (speed negotiation) issue. What do you get for output of show interface xe-0/1/4 extensive? Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 port 1G

, then set speed at interface level only. If you are going to do both, make them equal, although I am guess chassis fpc only has 10G as option. Did you have issue with auto for interface, which is default setting? HTH, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 upgrade path 18.4R

change". So today's code stream is 20.x based. You should at least be on some 17.x, or better yet in many cases 18.x. You better be able to find a stable release in some version of these code streams. My 2 cents worth. Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d

Re: [j-nsp] what do do with bug reports

knows about this. If situation is known by Juniper (PR already open) your case can be tied to that PR, or new PR can be marked as a duplicate of older PR. FYI only, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper Case Management down

--- Begin Message --- You can still use https://support.juniper.net/support/ but then don't select My Juniper from banner menu, but instead Case Manager. FYI only, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I

Re: [j-nsp] [EXT] EX4300: Framing error with macsec enabled

--- Begin Message --- Thanks Chuck Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 4/21/20, 11:53 AM, "Chuck Anderson" wrote: [External Email. Be cautious

Re: [j-nsp] [EXT] EX4300: Framing error with macsec enabled

—that are sent or received on the link. BEST PRACTICEWe recommend that any protocol other than MACsec being used on the MACsec connection, such as LLDP, LACP, STP, or layer 3 routing protocols, should be excluded and moved outside of the MACsec tunnel. Is this not working properly for LLDP? Rich Richard

Re: [j-nsp] Netflow config for MX204

/index?page=content=KB27035=RSS FYI Only, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 4/9/20, 3:35 AM, "Timur Maryin" wrote: On 09-Apr-20 08:20,

Re: [j-nsp] Flex licensing on MPC10

LONG time. Hopefully this helps. Just FYI, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 3/25/20, 3:32 PM, "Chris Wopat" wrote: Hey folks,

Re: [j-nsp] SRX Dynamic VPN License

--- Begin Message --- yes Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 4/6/20, 8:13 AM, "Mohammad Khalil" wrote: Greetings Hope all is good I h

Re: [j-nsp] QSFP+ to SFP+ adapters

OM support, if possible. Regards and FYI, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 3/16/20, 5:15 PM, "Jackson, William" wrote: Yes W

Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

performance/etc. I also agree with all the additional comments about RE/memory/64 bit support, etc. FYI only, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 2/26/20, 9

Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

+) and then use some sort of breakout scheme. The breakout scheme is generally an external patch panel of some sort - plenty [non-Juniper] options for this. In general, IMHO, if looking to upgrade older MXs, you should always at least look at an MX204 solution too. Just FYI. Rich Richard

Re: [j-nsp] [EXT] Re: MX204 MACsec

--- Begin Message --- This appears to be a SW issue, as MX204 does NOT have any MACsec support. As Chuck said, SW sure error in some manner, like non-supported platform etc. Even though the config is allowed, nothing will happen in terms of MACsec - no HW support. Rich Richard McGovern Sr

Re: [j-nsp] EX2300 Code

--- Begin Message --- Use 18.2R3-S2 Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 12/9/19, 6:15 AM, "William" wrote: Hi, I am in the process of g

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 MACsec

--- Begin Message --- So it looks SW allows for the commands, as other MX products do have MACsec support. I am 99.999% sure these commands will do nothing but make your config file larger. Thanks for the input. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 MACsec

or sure if used, these commands will do nothing. I am like 99.9% sure of that. If possible maybe you could config and then perform a commit check to see what results you get? I do not have a MX204 handy to try this. Thanks and regards, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 MACsec

. One would first need MACsec support to support this extra feature, and the MX204 does NOT have MACsec [HW] support, as Roger pointed out. I will try to get this inaccuracy corrected. Just FYI, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good

Re: [j-nsp] JunOS on EX4550?

worth. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 17, 2019, at 12:01 AM, Josh Baird wrote:  Thanks, Richard. Any particular reason why I would be better off using 12.3R12? On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:53 PM Richard McGovern mailto:rmcgov...@juniper.net>> wrote: No. For legacy EX switches, for which

Re: [j-nsp] JunOS on EX4550?

--- Begin Message --- No. For legacy EX switches, for which EX4500/EX4550 fall into, 15.1 is last release. At the same time, I think you might have best results using 12.3R12-S[latest] instead. Both 12.3 and 15.1 will be maintained for life of legacy EX switches. HTH, Rich Richard McGovern

Re: [j-nsp] EX2300-C-12P PoE issues

. FYI only, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 9/5/19, 8:49 PM, "Chris Lee" wrote: For the benefit of the archives have found

Re: [j-nsp] Ramp up old MX480

Reduced scale is currently honor based. Please note that in the future, Juniper is very likely to put in SW hooks to make licenses actually active, and no longer honor based. This is likely to be across the whole product portfolio. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks

Re: [j-nsp] PFE forwarding bug - PR1380183

branch back into the mainline at some point in time. Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 8/20/19, 9:28 AM, "Aaron Gould" wrote: Thanks Ric

Re: [j-nsp] PFE forwarding bug - PR1380183

Unless you need some feature/function that is in some 18.x or 19.x, and everything else in 17.4 is good for you, then I would suggest using 17.4R2-S[latest], which is S6 right now. S2 and above contain the fix for this PR. My 2 cents worth. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper

Re: [j-nsp] Rock-solid JUNOS for QFX5100

count team. Even if you just work only with a specific partner, that partner has a Juniper team with an SE supporting them. I am also of the firm believe that upgrade for upgrade sake or to stay most current is not always a great idea - if not broken why try to fix/change? Just FYI, Rich Richar

Re: [j-nsp] MX10003 rack size

Or 100cm - yes __ Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 8/7/19, 12:15 PM, "Anderson, Charles R" wrote: 1000mm deep. APC AR3100 racks are 600mm x 10

Re: [j-nsp] MX10003 rack size

Pete "1000 deep rack"?? Is that fathoms __ Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 8/7/19, 6:20 AM, "Pete Webb" wrote: No mate, I m

Re: [j-nsp] prsearch missing in inaction

I am doing some new checking. I am like 99.9% sure the floppy disk idea will not fly -__ Hopefully I will have an update sometime next week. Enjoy your visit to San Jose. Regards, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I

Re: [j-nsp] multi services

more throughput, they will bond multiple IPSEC tunnels together. As for failover, any failure should cause a switch to redundant module, assuming one is present. HTH, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good

Re: [j-nsp] DF/BDF Election EVPN

%20and%20PBB-EVPN Pathfinder => Feature Explorer is how to look for this sort of stuff. HTH, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 7/13/19, 7:52 PM, &quo

Re: [j-nsp] Link establishment issues with 1Gbps SX/LX SFPs on QFX5110

below. Something wrong with Support Web as I am not able to get there via normal login and choosing Downloads. Will look into this. https://support.juniper.net/support/downloads/?f=fusion HTH, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than

Re: [j-nsp] EVPN - BGP attribute propagation on MXes

19.1forward this should be a Junos-default setting for all platforms that support EVPN. HTH, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 7/3/19, 2:36 AM, "a

Re: [j-nsp] Junos 18.X on QFX5100

Have end-user running 18.1R3-S3, probably looking to move to 18.1R3-S6 down the road. Multiple standalone QFX5100 as L2 VTEP for EVPN/VXLAN, is main reason on 18.x code. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 On 5/25/19, 10:38 PM, "Philippe Girard&qu

Re: [j-nsp] prsearch missing in inaction

Nathan, not sure what history you are seeking, but if tell me what PR listing you seek, I'll see what I can gather. Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 On 5/13/19, 9:25 AM, "Nathan Ward" wrote: > On 14/05/2019, at 1:17 AM, Natha

Re: [j-nsp] prsearch missing in inaction

I cannot agree more, but unfortunately not my area to affect. BTW, in 40 years in networking working for multiple vendors, every company has room (and sometime great room) for improvement, . . . Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 On 5/9/19, 8:11 AM, "Ja

Re: [j-nsp] prsearch missing in inaction

Tom, sorry but that is way far-fetched. Nathan, if TAC will not provide you this info, then I am sure your local SE can assist. I know I can/would for any of my accounts. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 On 5/9/19, 5:02 AM, "Tom Hodgson&qu

Re: [j-nsp] prsearch missing in inaction

there are far worse things one could be concerned about than this. Just my 2 cents worth. The devil you know, is often better than the devil you do not know, . . . Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 On 5/9/19, 7:35 AM, "Timur Maryin" wrote:

Re: [j-nsp] prsearch missing in inaction

only works between release of the same major version. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 On 5/8/19, 3:05 AM, "Rob Foehl" wrote: On Tue, 7 May 2019, Nathan Ward wrote: > Is it actually coming back? Hard to believe the “technical issu

Re: [j-nsp] EX4600 or QFX5110

hile MC-LAG is always limited to 2 nodes or combinations of 2 nodes. At this time, Juniper is recommending the use of ESI LAG over MC-LAG. VC as the choice is a completely different discussion, at least IMHO. Hopefully this may help all. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Netwo

Re: [j-nsp] RFC2544 on Juniper SRX300

-info.html?fKey=7062=Ethernet%20loopback%20support%20for%20RFC%202544-based%20benchmarking%20test FYI Only. Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 On 4/17/19, 11:57 AM, "Emille Blanc" wrote: Page 6 of the SRX300 series datasheet states in the finepri

Re: [j-nsp] EVPN-VXLAN: Mixing QFX and EX

w, outside of this one link, I believe this is not announced or documented anywhere else. Today I am using only 10K or MX as Border Leaf. FYI Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 On 4/16/19, 4:09 PM, "Richard McGovern" wrote: 5110, can NOT r

Re: [j-nsp] EVPN-VXLAN: Mixing QFX and EX

If you are going to try any code for EVPN/VXLAN testing, I would highly suggest using 18.1R3-S4, at least right now. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 On 4/16/19, 4:21 PM, "Vincent Bernat" wrote: ❦ 16 avril 2019 20:09 +00, Richar

Re: [j-nsp] EVPN-VXLAN: Mixing QFX and EX

The core is generally an IP Fabric. Do matter what, you would need either MX or QFX10K model to talk to outside IP world, at least today. You could talk server to server with your DC, but not outside, which I assume is not what you want. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Junipe

Re: [j-nsp] EVPN/VXLAN experience (was: EX4600 or QFX5110)

using previously? I am wondering if you were ever on 17.3-R3-S3? Many thanks, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 On 3/22/19, 4:39 AM, "Sebastian Wiesinger" wrote: * Andrey Kostin [2019-03-15 20:50]: > I'm interested to hear abo

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5100 red alarm after power-off

a network. An easy test for your QFX5100 would be to power it up and disconnect Management Port and see if alarm goes RED, that is, works like EX4300. My 2 cents worth. Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 On 2/14/19, 12:33 PM, "Anderson, Charles R"

Re: [j-nsp] EX-SFP-10GE-T for EX4550

them to work, but not aware of anything involving older EX4550/EX4500. It is expect that EOL/EOS for legacy EX products will be announced shortly, I very much doubt that any 10GEBase-T Optic will ever get official certification on these older products. FYI only. Richard McGovern Sr Sales

Re: [j-nsp] Opinions on fusion provider edge

EVPN/VXKLAN and then connect 1GE platform (via ESI-LAG) to it. For question is need or beneficial to interconnect at edge, can be done, but not really beneficial as EVPN/VXLAN TOR or Agg are always 1 Hop away anyway. Hopefully this makes sense to you. Regards Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer

Re: [j-nsp] Opinions on fusion provider edge

at a higher price point. Good luck. Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 From: Eldon Koyle Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 1:30 PM To: Richard McGovern Cc: Juniper List Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Opinions on fusion provider edge We are looking at a mix of QFX5100

Re: [j-nsp] Opinions on fusion provider edge

I might suggest you look at an EVPN based design instead. This is going to be Juniper's #1 go to in the future. I believe things like Junos Fusion and MC-LAG, etc. may still be supported, but secondary to EVPN and associated features. What is your planned SD devices? QFX5??? Richard

Re: [j-nsp] Traffic delayed

something else getting in the way, that is some sort of congestion someplace. I’d suggest you open a TAC case and have them assist you. From: james list Date: Friday, October 5, 2018 at 12:30 AM To: Richard McGovern Cc: Juniper List Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Traffic delayed I perfectly knows

Re: [j-nsp] Traffic delayed

It does not. Do you know if delay if from QFX5100 or MX or both? Do you know what Queue this traffic is going into on each switch/router? From: james list Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 2:34 PM To: Richard McGovern , Juniper List Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Traffic delayed Due to the fact

Re: [j-nsp] Traffic delayed

There is no such product as an MX9K. Is your product some form of MX or an EX9200 of some type? In either case would need to know which exact modules within the MX or EX product you are using or are involved. When using the CAT6K was the edge QFX5100 previously as well? I assume QFX5100 is

Re: [j-nsp] JunOS recommendations

I think the answer would depend upon feature set you might want to use, or specific hardware. If neither of these matter, I think 16.2R2-S6 is probably safest choice. If you need newer feature/functions, I might suggest 18.1R3. Good luck, and no promises! Rich On 10/2/18, 11:44 AM, "Matthew

Re: [j-nsp] qfx5100 software upgrades and virtual-chassis

Louis, for reason (I assume some issue) is TAC saying that a host-upgrade solves something? I also assume from Junos SW point of view, you plan to stay with 14.1X53-D43, yes? BTW, in the future solution to this is to perform Host Upgrade at same time as Junos Upgrade, using the force-host

Re: [j-nsp] LACP hashing algorithm

I am assuming the traffic has MPLS labels, yes?? On 8/9/18, 7:17 AM, "Luis Balbinot" wrote: How many flows are there in total? Is there a test appliance involved? We had many issues with those in the past during service delivery tests. Also I assume you are using MPCs and not

Re: [j-nsp] LACP hashing algorithm

Yes, have seen this, but need to check how we resolved this. Will get back to you. On 8/8/18, 7:32 PM, "junos fordummies" wrote: Hi all, This will sound like a very weird question, but has anyone seen a scenario whereby an MX960 with 4 x 10G links always hashes (uses) a

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

PM, "Brian Rak" wrote: Are the QFX5200/QFX5210 also only layer 2 EVPN-VXLAN? On 8/7/2018 1:42 PM, Richard McGovern wrote: > Correct. For this functionality one needs either a 10K/MXPTX or EX9200 at current time. These situations may also require EVPN-MPLS, versu

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

Correct. For this functionality one needs either a 10K/MXPTX or EX9200 at current time. These situations may also require EVPN-MPLS, versus EVPN-VXLAN. QFX5110 is limited to EVPN-VXLAN at least today. QFX5100 provide L2 only EVPN-VXLAN. Thanks for pointing this out. On 8/6/18, 12:40 PM,

Re: [j-nsp] EX4550 or QFX5100 for Core

The copper optic warning is 100% based on physical limitations, nothing else. People have “forced” optics into places they should not go, with poor results. If you need more than a few 10GE-BaseT ports, then yes your best approach would be QFX5100-48T. I would still recommend staying away from

Re: [j-nsp] EX4550 or QFX5100 for Core

I would highly recommend going with QFX5110 instead of QFX5100 – same everything but QFX5110 offers L3 VXLAN which QFX5100 does not. I know you do not need this today, but down the road who knows. EVPN/VXLAN appears to be the new architecture for most networks, plus QFX5110 has QSFP28

Re: [j-nsp] EX4550 and MX104

From: Pavel Lunin Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 6:17 PM To: Richard McGovern Cc: juniper-nsp Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX4550 and MX104 #1 – I do not make the news, I only report it. #2, it is impossible to keep everyone happy all of the time. I have learned that over almost 40 years

Re: [j-nsp] EX4550 and MX104

e: Hi, On 17.07.2018 16:24, Richard McGovern wrote: > So, the original EX CLI and newer ELS based CLI are 100% based upon hardware platform in use, and not SW release, and do not BREAK anything from working. You cannot change from one CLI to the other via Junos SW code release changes. Th

Re: [j-nsp] EX4550 and MX104

Agree. Can’t please everyone all the time. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 17, 2018, at 10:34 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 17/Jul/18 16:24, Richard McGovern wrote: > >> Felt need to jump in here, and hopefully get some of the real facts >> straight.

Re: [j-nsp] EX4550 and MX104

Felt need to jump in here, and hopefully get some of the real facts straight. Prior to ELS CLI Juniper had basically 2 different CLI’s – one for EX Products and branch SRX one for MX and a like. M/MX CLI came first and used the terminology IRB and Bridge Domains. These products were designed