Re: [j-nsp] Junos Telemetry Interface (JTI)

Yes Niall, lets stay in touch. Thanks Tom, I’ll have to look at Panoptes Aaron > On Oct 11, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Tom Beecher wrote: > > Related, my company open sourced a tool we've been working on for network > telemetry at NANOG in Vancouver. I'm 95% sure that a JTI receiver is > functional

Re: [j-nsp] MTU issue

Last year I tried to set mtu to 16000 between (2) MX960’s that were connected with DWDM ciena... I was dropping packets and found out that the ciena DWDM had a mtu limit. I set my mx960’s to something around 9200 and was ok then Not sure what your problem is but thought I would share that DWDM

Re: [j-nsp] Licenses needed for inline J-Flow

Hmmm, I just recently turned on inline jflow on my mpc7e-mrate in a MX960, and I don’t think I did anything with a license. Aaron > On Nov 7, 2018, at 3:49 PM, Alex D. wrote: > > Hi, > > i would like to use inline J-Flow on MX480 routers with a mix of MPC2E-NG and > MPC7E-MRATE. I found the

Re: [j-nsp] Interconnecting spines in spine & leaf networks [ was Re: Opinions on fusion provider edge ]

at do you for > interconnecting 4x spines? What about if you reach 6x spines? Again: the > model is that resilience is achieved at the leaf:spine interconnectivity > rather than at the "top of the tree" as you would have in a standard > hierarchical, 3-tier-type setup. > &g

Re: [j-nsp] Junos Telemetry Interface (JTI)

I think Grafana is also capable of receiving this Telemetry info Maybe someone else can share how to make that work I’m also wanting to use JTI in ACX, And wondering if that capability is coming soon https://grafana.com/ https://github.com/brunorijsman/juniper-grafana Aaron > On Sep 28,

Re: [j-nsp] Problem with QinQ MPLS Service + Switch

At least fix this on r03... interface xe-0/0/0.300 Should be ... interface xe-0/0/1.300 Aaron > On Oct 6, 2018, at 2:19 AM, Robert Hass wrote: > > interface xe-0/0/0.300 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] Problem with QinQ MPLS Service + Switch

And if that doesn’t work, you might need to push and pop on the R03 side... ...also, is customer sending you 300 tagged frames on r01? If not then I don’t think you should tag and push and pop there on r01 Uni port Aaron > On Oct 6, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Aaron1 wrote: > > At

Re: [j-nsp] Problem with QinQ MPLS Service + Switch

ting post on > j-nsp. > Why should I push and pop on R03 ? See that QinQ (so adding second dot1q tag) > is done on catalyst switch. > >> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 3:07 PM Aaron1 wrote: >> And if that doesn’t work, you might need to push and pop on the R03 side... >>

Re: [j-nsp] Interconnecting spines in spine & leaf networks [ was Re: Opinions on fusion provider edge ]

Geez, sounds horrible , thanks Adam We are buying QFX-5120’s for our new DC build. How good is the MPLS services capability of the QFX-5120? Aaron On Nov 16, 2018, at 5:12 AM, wrote: >> Of Aaron1 >> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 4:23 PM >> >> Well, I’m a

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 Tunnel Services

I see you using ... lt-0/0/0.100 lt-0/0/0.101 You might be hitting something I found a while back with lsys, same MAC address on both sides of tunnel link , issues with that If you are hitting up against that problem, Try either sitting MAC address on one side OR sitting a static arp entry

Re: [j-nsp] dhcp relay fail between VRFs

aside from proper RT import/export... Auto export to get multiple vrfs taking on some PE ? Aaron > On Dec 19, 2018, at 12:57 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > > I have no trouble with dhcp relay between VRFs across MPLS PE routers, > but across VRFs on the same router, the relay daemon fud fails.

Re: [j-nsp] vMX questions - vCPU math

With vMX I understand that as more performance is needed, more vcpu, network card(s) and memory are needed. As you scale up, a single vcpu is still used for control plane, any additional vcpu‘s are used for forwarding plane. The assignment of resources is automatic and not configurable.

Re: [j-nsp] dhcp relay fail between VRFs

Dang typos... Did you apply local prefix leaking feature using auto-export to get multiple vrfs talking on same PE ? https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/nce/topics/concept/auto-export-overview.html Aaron > On Dec 19, 2018, at 1:13 PM, Aaron1 wrote: > &

Re: [j-nsp] dhcp relay fail between VRFs

I use the per-vrf dhcp-relay in ACX5048 Aaron > On Dec 19, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > > Nathan Ward [nw...@daork.net] wrote: >> Hi Chris, check out the forward-only-replies option, pretty sure there was >> some stuff there I had to fiddle with. >> >> Can you post your config?

Re: [j-nsp] How to pick JUNOS Version

Thanks Kody, 2 questions sir... I recently began moving towards that same version (17.4R2-S11) as I was hitting PR1419761 high cpu. 1 - did you upgrade straight from 15.1x54D51 to 17.4R2-S11 , or did you take an intermediate step? Asking since JTAC recently told me that this was too far of a

Re: [j-nsp] How to pick JUNOS Version

1 - https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content=KB33988 (pretty sure that avoids the usb craziness, if memory serves me right, I think Juniper created that KB from my lab 5048 test back in March 2019. Now I'm wondering if I tried to go to like 15.x.D61 or something prior to trying to go

Re: [j-nsp] How to pick JUNOS Version

Agreed. I like your philosophy about network software upgrades. if you don't absolutely need to, then don't. I don't like to change my network if it's running along just fine. Another reason for upgrades is that a vendor is no longer going to work with you because of EoS code. I've had that

Re: [j-nsp] How to pick JUNOS Version

Thanks ytti We still test drive a used car before purchasing, even though, the real test will be how it perform all day long up and down the highway...day after day. Yeah I don't test at scale for pps, and load of any and every protocol. Geez, that's a lot of testing. I think IXIA and

Re: [j-nsp] How to pick JUNOS Version

Amen to that. I recall a few years back, going with 15.1X54-D51.7 for the ACX5048 and having complete outage on irb's in L3VPN's with no dhcp relay (ip helper) capability. ...and being baffled as I recall that the D51 version was on the JTAC recommended list. (D61 fixed it) So yeah, I agree

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 port 1G

? " For MX/SRX (and I assume PTX and maybe ACX - don't much deal with those products ) xe is ONLY name allowed" ? I see otherwise... MX... MPC7E-MRATE (however et is the name for 40 gig and 100 gig) xe is also used, but with colon notation) Physical interface: xe-0/1/5:3, Enabled, Physical

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 port 1G

I found a few things in my notes from when I deployed a few MX204's ... Early on I had Junos: 17.4R2.4 and 1 gig SFP's wouldn't work... said UNSUPPORTED for 1 gig sfp's 4,5,7 root@lab-mx204> show chassis hardware Hardware inventory: Item Version Part number Serial number

Re: [j-nsp] Sflow QFX 10008 and/or 5200

Different platform but, I recall the ACX5048 having all sorts of SFLOW limitations... something like, only one direction, not on ae's, not on L2 interfaces, etc. -Aaron ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 port 1G

i see ge interfaces in my SRX300 and older SRX240... also I'm pretty sure legacy MX use ge for 1 gig inerfaces, and perhaps it's just those newer MX204/10003 that don't. user1@my-srx> show version Hostname: my-srx Model: srx300 Junos: 15.1X49-D170.4 JUNOS Software Release [15.1X49-D170.4]

Re: [j-nsp] track-igp-metric in LDP

I had to do this with my cgnat deployment. I had an unforeseen and undesirable result of all my customer facing mpls pe's using one and only one of my cgnat boundary mx960's. (this was via an mpls l3vpn) not good, I need the pe's to flow towards the igp-closest mx960 towards the internet. Thus

Re: [j-nsp] evpn trouble

I connected 2 dc's using evpn-mpls using the virtual-switch instance type... as I think Roger mentioned it allows for multiple vlans via one evpn The limitation you mention with ACX-type boxes is another reason why the MX204 is becoming more attractive of an option... well, I'm saying that not

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 Maximum Packet Rates

Interesting, that KB link mentions... "From Junos 19.1R1, we support "High-performance mode" to enable WAN Output block resource allocation. In this mode, better throughput is achieved at line-rate traffic for small sized packets." Maybe this will help others and OP achiever higher rates

Re: [j-nsp] Jumbo frames / mismatch MTU

Yeah, crazy how there's many mtu differences...apparently cosmetic since we all know ethernet always has a header ! IOS (classic and XE) doesn't include eth header IOS-XR like MX - does include eth header For some reason on my MX104's I did... set interfaces ae10 mtu 9192 here's some things

Re: [j-nsp] RSVP path constraints for transit LSPs

I know of a few methods for steering traffic in MPLS-TE/RSVP-TE, I've done this in IOS-XR, but not in Junos at this point... but i found this link that might help in Junos... https://www.inetzero.com/in-control-with-rsvp/ One way is to change the te-metric on that P router that you don't want

Re: [j-nsp] ACX Questions

Of the interfaces configured for mpls on this acx, they show max labels 3 me@5048> show mpls interface detail | grep "Interface|labels" Interface: ae0.0 Maximum labels: 3 Interface: ae40.0 Maximum labels: 3 Interface: xe-0/0/0.0 Maximum labels: 3 Interface: ge-0/0/3.0 Maximum labels: 3

Re: [j-nsp] ACX Questions

I run martini rfc 4447 ldp-based l2circuits as well as vpls on our mx204’s and also acx5048’s (I think junos 15.x and 17.x on 5048 and I think it’s 18.x on 204)… I don’t think I’ve tried mpls on qfx5120 (not sure what version of gfx5100) you use. I just tried to lab up l2circuit on one of

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

Years ago I had to get a license to make my 10g interfaces work on my MX104 Aaron > On Oct 25, 2023, at 5:03 AM, Tobias Heister via juniper-nsp > wrote: > > Am 25.10.2023 um 11:57 schrieb Xavier Beaudouin via juniper-nsp: >>> So there are a couple of enforced licenses even on MX ... and they

Re: [j-nsp] QSA adapters and MTU

I recall the MX204 being like that… an XE interface with a 1g speed command on the interface Aaron > On Nov 3, 2023, at 11:00 AM, Olivier Benghozi via juniper-nsp > wrote: > > Actually 1G ports are «10G ports operating at 1G speed». > So, configured as 10G ports on chassis side, giga-ether

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

I have an MX304 in the lab, evaluating it at the moment. Junos: 22.2R3.15 Telemetry is running and a little different than what I have on my MX960’s Also, I get a license warning when committing OSPF and LDP. We got a license from our account team and now we don’t see that message anymore

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

Also saw this message too… Error related to jflow-specific reporting rate [edit services analytics] 'sensor my-sensor-21' reporting-rate can't be less than 30sec for Inline Jflow Sensor on mx304! error: configuration check-out failed Aaron > On Oct 18, 2023, at 8:48 AM, Aaron1 wr

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router

sensor-17 resource /junos/system/linecard/npu/memory/ Aaron > On Oct 18, 2023, at 8:48 AM, Aaron1 wrote: > > I have an MX304 in the lab, evaluating it at the moment. Junos: 22.2R3.15 > > Telemetry is running and a little different than what I have on my MX960’s > > Al

Re: [j-nsp] ACX7100-48L

Juniper is sending me a new one, thinking it’s a faulty unit. Aaron > On Jun 13, 2023, at 10:28 AM, Andrey Kostin wrote: > > Aaron Gould via juniper-nsp писал(а) 2023-06-12 11:22: > >> interestingly, the PR is said to be fixed in 22.2R2-EVO, wouldn't that >> follow that it should be fixed in

Re: [j-nsp] proxy-arp on EVPN irb

As I recall, proxy-arp behavior is proven by looking in the local host arp cache and finding entries for foreign ip’s mapped to the default gateway’s mac address. If that is still occurring, then it would seem that proxy arp functionality is still working and you can move on to tshooting

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / EVPN-VXLAN with IPv6 underlay

…which is probably why you can configure it as “0” and Junos expands it to “0.0.0.0” Aaron > On Nov 28, 2023, at 10:07 AM, Christian Scholz via juniper-nsp > wrote: > > Also might be worth mentioning that the Router-ID - although it might look > like one and you would usually use one you

Re: [j-nsp] mx304 alarm seen after junos upgrade

Resolved… with the following… FPC showed a difference between what was running and what is available… reminiscent of IOS-XR upgrades and subsequent fpd/fpga upgrades. show system firmware FPC 0ZL30634 DPLL 9 6022.0.0 7006.0.0 OK request system