[j-nsp] Inhibiting external announcements of routes for which a larger announcement exists

Hi, apologies for the bad subject line - couldn't think of a way to condence my question into one line in a good ay. Let me explain what I'm trying to do: I've got 87.238.32/19 allocated from the RIPE NCC, and I intend to split it between our existing Norwegian site and our up-and-coming

Re: [j-nsp] LDP/RSVP interop

Hey Richard, I had raised 101569 for the bypass bouncing after bandwidth related resignal, and was told by DE this was expected behavior. At the time the explanation made sense. If a bypass m is protecting lsp n, and lsp n is torn down, for any reason and in any manner (make before break or not),

Re: [j-nsp] LDP/RSVP interop

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 08:41:42AM -0700, Harry Reynolds wrote: Hey Richard, I had raised 101569 for the bypass bouncing after bandwidth related resignal, and was told by DE this was expected behavior. At the time the explanation made sense. If a bypass m is protecting lsp n, and lsp n is torn

[j-nsp] subscriber access on MX

Hi, Does anyone know how to activate (apply) Radius authentication for subscriber management on an MX node? I have subscribers configured for dynamic access through an external DHCP server. For some reason, I'm getting the DHCP address without being first authenticated on MX through Radius. I'm

[j-nsp] Fwd: subscriber access on MX

-- Forwarded message -- From: Marlon Duksa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] subscriber access on MX To: Christopher Hartley [EMAIL PROTECTED] hmm, in this case below you have the authenticator hierarchy under dot1x. But I can't find

[j-nsp] best RE-333 OS

What's the best RE-333 version to run? Latest 9.x or 8.x or what? I deal with some re-333s on 7.5R1.12 now and it's fine. So maybe this is just a stupid question. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

[j-nsp] BFD?

Hi, I am reading about BFD - Bidirectional Forwarding Detection. I am in confused that why some routing protocol have already the keepalive engine still need to enforce with BFD? Thanks, Fitter ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] BFD?

On Tuesday 30 September 2008 09:25:14 Fitter wrote: I am reading about BFD - Bidirectional Forwarding Detection. I am in confused that why some routing protocol have already the keepalive engine still need to enforce with BFD? Because most routing protocols would generally employ intervals

Re: [j-nsp] BFD?

And also, if your routing protocols have 100 neighbors? what will you do if you want to change the hello timer? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:34:15 +0800 CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BFD? On Tuesday 30 September 2008

Re: [j-nsp] BFD?

apply-groups come in handy for this sort of thing, if I understand your example. David 2008/9/29 zhouyifeng [EMAIL PROTECTED]: And also, if your routing protocols have 100 neighbors? what will you do if you want to change the hello timer? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: