Hopefully not enforced!! Just FYI, but one of the advantages of Flex SW License
scheme is ability to move license from one SN to another. In License Portal you
“should” be able to revoke an applied Flex license and then apply that Flex
license to another SN. You should then me removing the
#1 jewel HPE (Aruba) is interested in is Juniper/MIST AI. MIST AI and ML is
also being integrated into many other facets of Juniper, one being Apstra. See
this in announcement -
https://www.barrons.com/articles/cisco-stock-arista-juniper-hp-enterprise-acquisition-b94d6024
FYI only, Rich
ther.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 09:41:41PM +, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp
wrote:
> Now, unknown to me (they don?t tell SEs any of this info either) there
> could have been ?hard? enforcemen
Ah, I forgot that point. None of the features should be “hard” enforced, no
matter what SW release you are running. You should receive many error/warning
messages regarding using a feature for which you do not have a license – “soft”
enforcement we call it. So no feature should not be able to
Confusing, yes! As chiel wrote, these are just ordering SKU. Neither should be
used for new orders. Instead “MX204-HWBASE-AC-FS” should be used, but
“MX204-HW-BASE” is still allowed for legacy ordering. These are both priced the
same, and basically provide exact same HW parts.
The “difference”
ducts/178066.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F7CPnpSnZpSXCLUjJg7ZJZW-4EwnnuO6ZEpuqfTNbXUdi7T4_PbDtVrokE_DOROtLHGyiRFKFH70pDnNdKL9rYBk1LwF-waO$>
(QSFP28 to 25G SFP28)
(This is on 5120-32c)
On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 at 15:39, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp <
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper
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
On
I believe if you cipher is set to one that Juniper no longer supports, i.e.
that knob selection is depreciated, the upgrade will not complete. The change
in cipher support is due to new vulnerability findings.
SSH Vulnerability, "Deprecated SSH Cryptographic Settings" with Vulnerability
Result
Couple of things regarding this thread.
#1 – MX304 MTU: The MTU restriction ONLY applies when the QSA adapter is used
with 1G Optic in an MX304. For 10G there is no MTU limitation. The reason being:
The 2K MTU limit is very specific to MX304. The MX304 uses the YT trio PFE,
which does not have
#1, sorry I opened up the Women in STEM discussion, was not meant to
The comment about licenses – agree 100% with what was stated.
“I'd suggest staying very close to our SE's for the desired outcome we
want for this development. As we have seen before, Juniper appear
reasonably open to
of content]
We are trying to hire network engineers at Blue Mountain Networks and does
anybody know someone looking for an opportunity. Sorry if I should not ask.
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp
mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net>>
On Behal
Only
On 10/25/23, 2:38 PM, "Ola Thoresen" wrote:
On 25.10.2023 19:20, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp wrote:
> Crist, not quite 100% accurate. Perpetual License are permeant and last
> forever, but with newer Flex License structure also require a SW Support
> Contract.
for an opportunity. Sorry if I should not ask.
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp On Behalf Of Richard
McGovern via juniper-nsp
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 10:59 AM
To: Michael Hare ; Saku Ytti ; Aaron1
Cc: juniper-nsp
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge
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,
Crist, not quite 100% accurate. Perpetual License are permeant and last
forever, but with newer Flex License structure also require a SW Support
Contract. Subscription based licenses of course expire at end of the
subscription date, but do include SW Support.
Trial and Demo licenses always
sp On Behalf Of
> Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 7:51 AM
> To: Saku Ytti ; Aaron Gould
> Cc: Karl Gerhard ; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router
>
> Aaron, what version of Junos are you using on your MX304? Th
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
Aaron, what version of Junos are you using on your MX304? This should NOT
happen and if it did/is, then I suggest you open a Case with JTAC. Minimally
your account team should be able to get you a temp license to work-around this
until resolved.
The introduction of newer (well now like 2 years
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>>
--- Begin Message ---
MACSEC is pt-to-pt so is your plan to run MACSEC from Point A to EX4300 and
then connect same EX4300 to Point B - two different and independent MACSEC
connections?
If you want pass-through of one session you will need to create some sort of
tunnel between EX port A to
--- 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
--- Begin Message ---
Sorry should have been clearer. When I said SRX/MX this for HE SRX only, not
branch (either 2xx or 3xx) and older mid-range; SRX4xxx shows as -xe only.
This is also ONLY for interfaces that support 1/10, not 1 GE only. Older MX
interfaces were either 1GE or 10GE only,
--- 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,
--- 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
--- 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
--- Begin Message ---
Correct. Unlike EX/QFX where for 1/10 capable interfaces the name will match
the insert Optic. 1G Optic shows as ge, 10G Optic shows as xe. Both ge/xe
names allowed.
For MX/SRX (and I assume PTX and maybe ACX - don't much deal with those
products ) xe is ONLY name
--- Begin Message ---
I believe Juniper has at least slightly modified their view on upgrades. The
old "no more than 2 release jumps" was based upon when EEOL type releases
existed; these do not really exist anymore.
AFAIK, the major issue with BIG SW jumps is with the config. New SW may have
--- Begin Message ---
For 100% sure you should open a JTAC Case, like P3, as you have a current
workaround. JTAC should then reproduce your issue, at which time they will
create a PR for Engg to work on. PR will be scheduled to be fixed in some
future release. JTAC should be able to provide
--- 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
--- 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 of content]
--- Begin Message ---
Chuck, I thought you were running both LLDP and LACP outside the MACSEC tunnel,
no?
(Optional) Exclude a protocol from MACsec:
[edit security macsec connectivity-association connectivity-association-name]
user@switch# set exclude-protocol protocol-name
For instance, if you
--- Begin Message ---
By any chance does you config/design include LSYS? If yes export could/will
have issues, BUT at same time this combination is not officially supported
together to start with. So if trying to use these together, you are on your
own.
--- Begin Message ---
Yes Flex Licensing allows the license to move from one device, to another. You
purchase a Flex license which last for a period of time, and includes support -
no extra Support SKU is needed. The license is NOT tie to any hardware! This
is different than older original
--- 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 have SRX300 and
--- Begin Message ---
Chuck is not running Fusion of any kind.
Chuck, I "think" we are going to eventually certify (not re-sell) one of these
adapters, most likely Mellanox. We cannot certify all, that is for sure.
Hopefully at that time, we can add whatever might be needed to get DOM
--- Begin Message ---
I could tell you what that knob is for, but I would need to kill you afterwards
__
I believe that knob can be set to Enhanced IP even with older SCB. I have a
customer with this set, older SCB, no issues.
Just sat, this knob should always be set to Enhanced IP for best
--- Begin Message ---
#1, yes 16XGE module works with all varieties if SCB. I assume you already own
the equipment list. I therefore 'think' your question/concern is with such
equipment, any concern going from 16.2 to some later release, which I am
guessing might be something like 18.4R2-S3
--- 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
--- 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 getting our
--- 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
--- Begin Message ---
Oh, I am sure the commands are there in the CLI as Juniper generally does not
"hide' non-affecting functions from the CLI, on a per product basis. If
actually used you 'might' get a "unsupported on this platform" message, when
you try to commit. For sure if used, these
--- Begin Message ---
I am fairly certain the original link that Graham posted -
https://apps.juniper.net/feature-explorer/parent-feature-info.html?pFName=Media%20Access%20Control%20Security%20(MACsec)
- where it shows that the MX204 has support for Unicast MAC DA for MACsec is
inaccurate.
--- Begin Message ---
In my view best stability, used by most people (all of my customers are on 12.3
only), and no feature set differences. When 15.1 came out initially there were
some concerns, so IMHO most just stayed on 12.3 once it was announced to have
continued support.
Just my 2 cents
--- 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
--- Begin Message ---
Chris what is actually happening here is not so much class setting but
LLDP/LLDP MED. By default EX switches support LLDP MED POE-Negotiation, and
use this method 1st. So whatever wattage the external device requests is taken
into the total power budget. Once the switch
Yes there is no equivalent MX Services to SPC3 at this time, but this is being
worked on. This is supposed to be coming in 19.3, via software only; new SW
architecture.
Many [large] customers are running large scale IPSEC termination, but 5G max,
from what [little] I know. If someone needs
Appears to only be on MX, as of today, although I might expect it to be at
least be in QFX10K configuration. Potentially not yet supported due to lack of
testing time. See here:
Colton, EX Access switches used in Campus Fusion, do NOT run Junos. The run
what we call SNOS (Satellite Network OS) instead. These SW releases, at least
from a numbering standpoint, are completely different and independent of Junos
releases. You can find Satellite SW via this direct link
Adam, sorry to disagree but I have a number of very successful EVPN/VXLAN
deployments, all running 18.1R3-S[something]. Yes EVPN is new, but becoming
more and more a Junos standard deployment every day. At least IMHO.
Documentation needs a lot of catching up, so today some form of PS
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" wrote:
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, Nathan Ward wrote:
>
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, "James C
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" wrote:
Nathan, I am not sure what you want to hear, or what would make you satisfied,
but YES Juniper [IT?] did screw-up, and a restore from back-up was/is not
possible. So this situation is now being worked on, unfortunately at a not so
fast pace. I hope you decide to stay with Juniper, as I feel
Contacted someone internally and yes this is being worked on. The time period
is "end of Q2, hopefully sooner". In the meantime, if you need comparison
between 2 releases of same major release, then TAC should be able to generate
this for you via internal PR DIFF tool. This only works
I know this thread is quite old, but wanted to respond with some additional
info.
As for a generic comparison, the EX4600 is exact same internal hardware (PFE)
as a QFX5100, just different packaging, and potentially feature support. In
this case, feature support is "what is tested and
Yes only MX
(https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/rfc2544-benchmarking-test-overview.html
) and ACX
(https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/services-rpm-rfc2544-benchmarking-test-overview.html
) appear to have generator capabilities.
See
Correction - QFX5110 can now route VLAN/IP to VNI via this configuration:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/evpn-vxlan-qfx5110-l2-vxlan-l3-logical.html
I was no aware this information had been put out there. Min SW would be
17.3R3, but 18.1R3-S[latest, now 4]
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, Richard McGovern :
5110, can NOT route between VLAN/IP and VXLAN, today. This is a future (some
19.x?).
I do believe that QFX5110 is not really "certified" as a EVPN/VXLAN Spine.
Your design is what Juniper refers to as CRB - Centralized Route/Bridged. That
is, VXLAN L3 at the core, versus the edge. The core
Sebastian, a couple of questions.
1. Your design is pure QFX5100 Leaf/Spine today? If yes, I assume you maybe
only have 1 flat VXLAN network, that is you have no L3 VXLAN, yes?
2. You stated you need 17.4 for improved LACP operation. Which exact 17.4 are
you using, and what version were you
61 matches
Mail list logo
