You see zero because it is NOT supported on EX4500 platform.
regards,
Phuong
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:09 AM, ryanL ryan.lan...@gmail.com wrote:
heya list, anyone know if this is a bug? i've tried restarting snmp
and shm-rtsdbd but no success.
i can't access juniper.net at the moment to
Hi,
I think no one made an argument for not doing it that way..
I will deploy the RIB-FIB filtering tomorrow morning during
our maintenance window, i hope everything goes well.
Thank you all for your input.
Kind regards,
Peter Krüpl
___
juniper-nsp
Anyone with any ideas on this?
Scott H.
On 11/9/13, 12:58 PM, Scott Harvanek wrote:
Is there a way to build a IPSec tunnel / service interface where the
local gateway is NOT in the same routing-instance as the service
interface?
Here's what I'm trying to do;
[ router A (SRX) ] == Switch /
Yes
[edit]
aarseniev@m120# set services service-set SS1 ipsec-vpn-options
local-gateway ?
Possible completions:
addressLocal gateway address
routing-instance Name of routing instance that hosts local
gateway = CHECK THIS OUT!!!
aarseniev@m120 show version
Alex,
Yea, tried this but it looks like you can't set it to the default inet.0
instance, only to things different... the local gw in my case is in the
default instance and I want the service interface in another so unless
I'm mistaken it's in default by default and this fails?
Scott H.
On
So, if I understand Your requirement, You want sp-0/0/0.unit in VRF,
correct?
And outgoing GE interface in inet.0?
And where the decrypted packets should be placed, inet.0 or VRF?
And where from the to-be-ecrypted packets should arrive, from inet.0 or VRF?
If the answer is correct/inet.0/VRF/VRF
Yep excellent, I'll give it a whirl, thanks!
Scott H.
On 11/12/13, 1:24 PM, Alex Arseniev wrote:
So, if I understand Your requirement, You want sp-0/0/0.unit in VRF,
correct?
And outgoing GE interface in inet.0?
And where the decrypted packets should be placed, inet.0 or VRF?
And where from
Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that
kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air?
The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing,
but it still seems ridiculous.
On 8 November 2013 16:46, Paul Nazario naza...@doit.wisc.edu wrote:
That is what we've
On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote:
Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that
kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air?
The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing,
but it still seems ridiculous.
The question might have been
On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote:
Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that
kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air?
The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing,
can anyone recommend a procedure to add an NPC card to an SRX HA
(active/standby) cluster?
In this case it's a pair of SRX3400s, running 12.1X44-D10.4
I've only got two redundancy groups, RG0(control) and RG1(data).
Currently the only NPC in each SRX is the integrated NPC-IOC 10GbE card in each
One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the MX5/10/40/80, the
built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS (per-unit scheduling). I'm
confused as to why this is, considering they are Trio-based routers, but I
digress. I personally don't think that the astronomical cost to
My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower density
subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find it's
niche as a BRAS.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol e...@atlantech.net wrote:
One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like
That and I think a lot of the BRAS migration functionality (LNS/LAC etc) was
late to the party after being told it wasn't going to happen for anything lower
than the 240.
On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford bblackf...@gmail.com wrote:
My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely
Does anyone know how many users the MX104 will be able to handle though?
The 4000 user limit on the MX80 was quite low.
Does the MX104 have the services port on the back like the MX80? I'm
waiting for the CGN Services card which was supposed to be released around
now.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve
MS-MIC is out for the MX5-80:
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000454-en.pdf
doesn't look like there isn't a services port on the back of the 104 though:
http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx104/mx104-rear-high.jpg
maybe you can use one of the front slots?
Anyone have have a ball park figure of what the MS-MIC will cost?
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ben Dale bd...@comlinx.com.au wrote:
MS-MIC is out for the MX5-80:
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000454-en.pdf
doesn't look like there isn't a services port on the back
Isn't that using the front MIC slot though?
The rear 'Services Slot' is an MPC slot isn't it?
Based on the following:
MS-MIC 16G - MS-MIC with 16 GB of memory provides 9GB of service
throughput, occupies single MIC slot on MX5, MX10, MX40, and MX80 3D
Universal Edge Routers, as well as on the
Yeah, my take on that is that MPC0 is pretty much anything built-in on the
MX5/80 - eg: the front 10G ports are xe-0/0/0
My guess is that the rear slot is just another MIC slot (slot 1) MPC 0 so
something like sp-0/1/0 or whatever designation gets used.
The front MIC slots are ge-1/0/0-19
The datasheet for the MX-104 (
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000446-en.pdf ) has
the MIC listed:
MS-MIC-16G Multiservices MIC with 16GB of memory for the MX5, MX10,
MX40, MX80 and MX104 as well as Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 and Type 4 MPCs
for the MX240, MX480, MX960, MX2010
Scaling on the MX80 is supposed to be 16,000 per chassis, 8,000 per MIC
and 4,000 per PIC and a 8,000 limit on PPPoE sessions.
In order to max out you need 2 MICs loaded with at least 1 port per PIC
active for subscriber term at up to 4k per.
Also, vlan units and PPPoE units both count as a
On (2013-11-12 20:25 -0500), Eric Van Tol wrote:
One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the MX5/10/40/80,
the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS (per-unit scheduling). I'm
confused as to why this is, considering they are Trio-based routers, but I
digress. I
22 matches
Mail list logo
