Hi juniper-nsp,
Just hit exactly the same issue as described in the message found in the
list archives:
Gustavo Santos
Mon Jan 4 15:13:18 EST 2021
Hi,
We got another MX10003 and we are updating it before get in production.
Reading the 19.4R3 release notes, we noticed that two
features
Thanks, Joe.
Right, pdf only for SR releases has been a while, but not very long, the
change happened just few months ago. My personal preference would be to
read html that can adapt to screen size, etc. Imo the value of pdf is to
be able to print a paper copy, but it's hard to imagine that
links to PR or copy one
paragraph I now have to download the pdf and open it in Acrobat. Please
chime in and maybe our voices will be heard.
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net
Hi Aaron,
Maybe this can be helpful:
https://supportportal.juniper.net/s/article/MX304-MinorFPC-0-firmware-outdated
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
Aaron1 via juniper-nsp писал(а) 2024-02-29 21:55:
Resolved… with the following…
FPC showed a difference between what was running and what
Hi Aaron,
It's not clear from your explanation where l2circuits with ospf are
connected and how they are related to this irb/vlan.
Do you really need a querier in this case? IIRC, querier is needed when
only hosts are present on LAN and a switch has to send igmp queries. In
your case, you
Hi Mark,
100% agree if it could help.
Very annoying. If UX designer touched it, he or she probably never
actually worked with Junos.
Kind regards,
Andrey
Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp писал(а) 2023-07-12 04:49:
So, this is going to be a very priviledged post, and I have been
spending the last
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 my version? 22.2R3.13-EVO
me@lab-7100-2> show version
...
Junos: 22.2R3.13-EVO
The fix should be already implemented in the version
Hi Saku,
Saku Ytti писал(а) 2023-06-09 12:09:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 18:46, Andrey Kostin wrote:
I'm not in this market, have no qualification and resources for
development. The demand in such devices should be really massive to
justify a process like this.
Are you not? You use a lot
Thank you very much, Jeff, for sharing your experience. Will watch
closely Release Notes for upcoming Junos releases. And kudos to Juniper
for finding and fixing it, 1,5 week is very fast reaction!.
Kind regards,
Andrey
Litterick, Jeff (BIT) писал(а) 2023-06-09 12:41:
This is why we got the
Saku Ytti писал(а) 2023-06-09 10:35:
LGA8371 socketed BRCM TH4. Ostensibly this allows a lot more switches
to appear in the market, as the switch maker doesn't need to be
friendly with BRCM. They make the switch, the customer buys the chip
and sockets it. Wouldn't surprise me if FB, AMZN and
Mark Tinka писал(а) 2023-06-09 10:26:
On 6/9/23 16:12, Saku Ytti wrote:
I expect many people in this list have no need for more performance
than single Trio YT in any pop at all, yet they need ports. And they
are not adequately addressed by vendors. But they do need the deep
features of NPU.
Saku Ytti писал(а) 2023-06-09 10:12:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 16:58, Andrey Kostin via juniper-nsp
wrote:
Not sure why it's eye-watering. The price of fully populated MX304 is
basically the same as it's predecessor MX10003 but it provides 3.2T BW
capacity vs 2.4T. If you compare with MX204
Hi Mark,
Not sure why it's eye-watering. The price of fully populated MX304 is
basically the same as it's predecessor MX10003 but it provides 3.2T BW
capacity vs 2.4T. If you compare with MX204, then MX304 is about 20%
expensive for the same total BW, but MX204 doesn't have redundant RE and
Hi Jeff,
Thank you very mush for sharing this information. Do you know in what
publicly available release it's going to be fixed? Knowing PR number
would be the best but I guess it may be internal-only.
Kind regards,
Andrey
Litterick, Jeff (BIT) via juniper-nsp писал(а) 2023-06-08 18:03:
I didn't have any v6-specific issues with DHCP relay in Junos 21.4. If
you're going to rely on option-82, consider to turn on proxy mode.
Without it Junos didn't update Circuit-ID in RENEW packets sent unicast
from clients to DHCP server. Although it could be fixed in last
releases, worth to
Hi Dave,
Don't have experience with your specific case, just a common sense
speculation. When you configure local dhcp server it usually specifies a
template interface, like demux0.0, pp0.0, psX.0. Probably in your case a
conflict happens when junos tries to enable both server and relay on
Thanks, Mihai, for sharing this very useful info!
Kind regards,
Andrey
Mihai via juniper-nsp писал(а) 2022-12-31 07:20:
I found the info here:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/routing-policy/topics/ref/statement/system-packet-forwarding-options-hw-db-profile.html
Hi Cristian,
I tried to reproduce the issue by reverting the configuration, but it
didn't occur. It's still unclear to me why only v4 was affected and v6
was not. Furthermore, in stable state (which it was in my case) vrrp
backup is silent so no mac move events can happen and I confirmed it
Have nothing directly related to these releases, but we have a few
SRX320 and they always felt slow in comparison to SRX345 that we also
use mainly for power supply redundancy. Now they are all on 19.4R3-Sx.
320s time to time log LACP timeouts and ae interface flaps. 345s have
the same
I agree, there is no clarity for all possible situations and from my
experience a) and c) should be correct and take special care. Changing
existing policy doesn't drop a session (usually ;) and I saw when adding
a new policy in the existing policy chain didn't drop BGP, but might be
not
Hi,
this KB article just came in:
https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content=KB12008=SUBSCRIPTION
Symptoms:
Why does modifying a policy on a BGP neighbor in a group cause that
particular peer to be reset, when another policy is applied for the
whole peer group?
Solution:
Changing the
, maybe with sessions between loopbacks BGP would
rely on OSPF for next-hop resolution and it can change the behavior?
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
Alexandre Snarskii писал(а) 2021-12-20 12:31:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 09:08:40AM -0500, Andrey Kostin wrote:
Hi Alexandre,
Not sure that I
and propagated. Only if OSPF route for a protocol next-hop is not the
best, the next-hop from BGP-LU will be used.
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
Alexandre Snarskii via juniper-nsp писал(а) 2021-12-17 12:29:
Hi!
Scenario: router is a part of ospf/ldp island and also have ibgp
labeled-unicast rib inet
Hi Nathan,
You want to look in the example configs. Start from an understanding
of what you want the RADIUS messages to have in them. You can do this
with just a static Users file in your test environment with just one
subscriber, and then look at moving that in to sqlippool or similar,
with
Nathan Ward писал 2021-08-10 20:53:
Yeah the FreeRADIUS docs are hard to navigate - but getting better.
You want to look in the example configs. Start from an understanding
of what you want the RADIUS messages to have in them. You can do this
with just a static Users file in your test
Andrey Kostin via juniper-nsp писал 2021-08-10 16:44:
So far, I started to play with KEA dhcp server and stumbled on "shared
subnet" with multiple pools topic. I have two clients connected. The
first pool has only one IP available to force the client who comes
last to use the s
Nathan Ward via juniper-nsp писал 2021-08-10 08:00:
On 10/08/2021, at 10:40 PM, Bjørn Mork via juniper-nsp
wrote:
Thank you Nathan and Bjorn for your explanations, they are very helpful!
I'll definitely look at ip pool management in RADIUS. I'm struggling to
find a good freeradius
Bjørn Mork via juniper-nsp писал 2021-08-06 15:27:
Thanks for your reply.
Probably stupid question, but here goes... How does a central server
make the IP usage more effective? Are you sharing pools between
routers?
Yes, going to have at least two routers as BNG and trying to find a way
to
Bjørn Mork via juniper-nsp писал 2021-08-06 12:38:
Andrey Kostin via juniper-nsp writes:
What DHCP server do you use/would recommend to deploy for subscriber
management?
The one in JUNOS. Using RADIUS as backend.
Thanks, currently using it but looking for a central server for more
Jerry Jones писал 2021-08-06 09:37:
Strongly suggest having active lease query or bulk active lease query
I believe kea has this support
Jerry Jones
Thanks for reply, Jerry.
In my understanding active leasequery can be run between routers, so
might be not needed on DHCP
Hi Juniper-NSP community,
What DHCP server do you use/would recommend to deploy for subscriber
management? Preferably packaged for CentOS. Required features are IPv4,
IPv6 IANA, IPv6 IA_PD. Active leasequery support is desirable but
optional.
--
Kind regards,
Andrey
Cristian Cardoso via juniper-nsp писал 2021-07-19 14:15:
Hi
Thanks for the tip, I'll set it up here.
Are you trying to setup MX80 as end-host, without including it in EVPN?
If so, then you can extend EVPN to MX80 and run virtual-gateway from it.
No need for VRRP in this case.
Kind
It looks like "High performance mode" means configuring port speed in
pic mode that may not be feasible in all cases depending on port
configuration.
No data for HP mode provided...
And finally, from the example, where did they find fpc 5 on MX10003? ;)
Kind regards,
Andrey
aar...@gvtc.com
Hi Baldur,
There is PR1551063 for this case listed in the Release Notes, please
check.
Kind regards,
Andrey
Baldur Norddahl писал 2021-05-12 19:34:
When I add this to the configuration the acx5448 irb will route
traffic:
set routing-instances internet routing-options static route
Agree with Rx-S and with reasonably conservative approach,
should be >= 3. In S1, S2 you will probably get PR fixes
affecting multiple previous releases but for a new R-specific PRs it
takes time to be discovered and fixes implemented, which usually takes
not less than 6 months. Also you may
Hi juniper-nsp,
Looking for your opinion about ACX5448, it's limitations and difference
from QFX5120. I know that it's based on another chipset but more details
would be appreciated.
Particularly interested in -D model, it looks attractive to not have
extra DWDM gear just to connect a single
Your 960 will be choked if you are going to push a decent traffic volume
through it. And circulation through backplane to and from service cards
will only make it worse.
Just imho. Your choice.
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
Aaron Gould писал 2020-03-09 09:18:
In my case, 960 has a lot
I'd be +1 for this. For DC GW the main concern should be reliability and
simplicity. If you are going to bring EVPN there, then having fancy
services mixed on the same chassis may affect your uptime.
Also I'd take MX480 instead of 960 because of architecture compromises
of the latter. I'm also
Faced the same issue and found out that generated route works in my
case. It may be not flexible enough if multiple active next-hops exist
at the same time in the routing-instance, but it's ok for simple
primary-backup scenario.
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
Original message
sue. The
workaround in my case was to use broadband loopback address as primary,
thanks that it's not so critical as IPv4 primary loopback.
As we are looking into possible IPoE implementation for some services,
thanks for heads up.
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
Baldur Norddahl писал 2020-01-27 0
Hi Vincent,
Thank you for a good advice. I saw this page before, but now reviewed
it. According to it only second opton could qualify and I'm going to
test it. Anyway, for final solution QFX10K will be in consideration.
Kind regards,
Andrey
Vincent Bernat писал 2019-09-26 02:49:
Hello,
septembre 2019 11:47 -04, Andrey Kostin :
I am not familiar with MPLS. You need to use QFX10k for the spines as
the QFX5k are not able to route VXLAN outside (or not able to route at
all).
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https
Hi Vincent,
Thank you for elaborating on this, I had the same question when read
your reply.
It may be not an issue for a small deployment but definitely should be
considered in terms of BCP.
Could you advise about various external connectivity options for
EVPN-VXLAN fabric? Let's say there
Hi Joe,
There are some documents on Junipers website describing principles and
including configurations, like this:
https://www.juniper.net/us/en/training/jnbooks/day-one/data-center-technologies/data-center-deployment-evpn-vxlan/
Some parameters can vary, so it depends on what your
<16.1).
- There is a RI-RSVP (16.1 or later) node after non-RI-RSVP node.
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
adamv0...@netconsultings.com писал 2019-08-16 06:01:
From: Nathan Ward
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 8:39 AM
> On 1/07/2019, at 9:59 PM, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
>
>>
t;. I
may be mistaken, but in my understanding S-releases don't undergo full
testing routine and verified only for implemented bugfixes.
Please share you investigation results with JTAC.
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
Ross Halliday писал 2019-08-12 09:19:
Dear List,
I'm curious if anybody can recomme
Hi Baldur,
Maybe this feature could be useful for you despite it's documented in
completely wrong place?
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/dual-stack-pppoe-access-ndra.html#id-ip-demultiplexing-interfaces-on-packet-triggered-subscribers-services-overview
Kind
numbered-address "$junos-loopback-interface";
}
}
}
}
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
Baldur Norddahl писал 2019-05-18 11:05:
Hello
I am having trouble with subscriber management not inserting any
routes. Information is picked up from radius, such as this:
baldur@interxi
Hi Sebastian,
Could you please clarify a little bit, does this limit on bridge-domain
number apply when you have same 500 vlans on 30 aes or each ae has
unique 500 VNIs?
How is external connectivity implemented and for how many VNIs?
Kind regards,
Andrey
Sebastian Wiesinger писал 2019-03-25
Hi Alexandre,
Did it pass frames without C-tag in Junos versions < 18?
Kind regards,
Andrey
Alexandre Snarskii писал 2019-03-22 13:03:
Hi!
Looks like JunOS 18.something introduced an incompatibility of native
vlan handling in QinQ scenario between ELS (qfx, ex2300) and non-ELS
switches: when
Kostin писал 2019-03-22 09:46:
Thank you Sebastian for sharing your very valuable experience.
Kind regards,
Andrey
Sebastian Wiesinger писал 2019-03-22 04:39:
* Andrey Kostin [2019-03-15 20:50]:
I'm interested to hear about experience of running EVPN/VXLAN,
particularly
with QFX10k as L3 gateway
Thank you Sebastian for sharing your very valuable experience.
Kind regards,
Andrey
Sebastian Wiesinger писал 2019-03-22 04:39:
* Andrey Kostin [2019-03-15 20:50]:
I'm interested to hear about experience of running EVPN/VXLAN,
particularly
with QFX10k as L3 gateway and QFX5k as spine/leaves
Hi juniper-nsp,
Accidentally found that MX series datasheet now mentions MPC-10E with
400G ports
https://www.juniper.net/assets/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000597-en.pdf
"The MPC-10E line card is a key contributor to the service
provider transformation in the cloud era when deployed with
Hi guys,
My 0.02: we use QFX5100 in VC and it's pretty solid. But. As mentioned,
it's a single logical switch and by design it can't run members with
different Junos versions that means downtime when you need to upgrade
it. There is an ISSU but it has it's own caveats, so be prepared to
Hi Mattew,
In Junos there is no dedicated feature set for subscriber management,
all features are included in regular Junos package, but you need to
activate some licenses to use it. If you have already working AAA system
for DHCP subscribers, Junos should be capable to work with it.
Just adding that new jdhcpd daemon was implemented long ago and
coexisted at least in junos 12 and 13 causing a lot of confusion. Old
dhcpd daemon was (recently) removed, so OP needs to adjust to new
config.
Kind regards,
Andrey
Eldon Koyle писал 10.12.2018 10:55:
I think the commands to
Hi Pavel,
HQoS is needed for subscriber aggregation, exactly for the case that is
discussed in another thread "Juniper buffer float".
NG cards without HQoS can be configured for "flexible mode" which is
HQoS limited to 32k queues. It's suitable for example if you have some
number of vlans and
that was done.
I just didn't know if there was anything else anyone else was doing
of if anyone came across a similar situation.
--
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Pavel Lunin писал 14.08.2018 05:06:
Not sure, but from the first glance it doesn't look like they've
gained
more than they've lost with the JunosE to JUNOS BNG migration.
I didn't miss JunosE any single day after we finished migration to MX.
MX platform is not ideal and has it's own
Hi Aaron,
Possibly it could, but it definitely needs to be checked and tested
about possibility of unequal load-balancing. As far as next-hop tooling
required anyway to process those prefixes in a different way than other
announced from PEs, and traffic is actually sent via rsvp tunnels,
Replying to my own question.
I received direct reply from one of juniper-nsp subscribers with link
to article explaining this behavior:
This is FAD to ensure new backup synchronizes correctly.
https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content=KB32221
Kind regards,
Andrey
Andrey
Hello juniper-nsp,
Installed new 17.3R3.9 for testing on the router acting as L2TP LNS and
encountered strange behavior right off the bat. When mastership is
switched between REs, the former master RE reloads right after it
releases it's mastership. Switchover itself goes smoothly, all
unin писал 22.07.2018 17:55:
> Errata
>>
So your BGP route will not be inactive because of the unreachable
next-hop.
> So your BGP route *will be* inactive because of the
unreachable next-hop.
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Pavel
Lunin wrote:
>
>> On Sun, J
e same IPv6
over MPLS but with an explicit (as opposed to implicit) null label at
the tail end, which hides the v6 header from the penultimate LSR. Or you
can just disable PHP in the core.
>
> Cheers,
> Pavel
>
> пт, 20
июл. 2018 г., 21:59 Andrey Kostin :
>
>> Hell
Hi Pedro,
Thanks for your comment. I agree with you that penultimate LSP forwards
traffic based on received label without IPv6 lookup. In my scenario,
default PHP is used and all routers have family inet6 configured, so it
just works.
Pedro Marques Antunes via juniper-nsp писал 21.07.2018
Hi Dan,
Thanks for answering. All routers have family inet6 configured on all
participating interfaces, because other v6 traffic is forwarded without
MPLS, so we are safe for that.
Kind regards,
Andrey
Dan Peachey писал 20.07.2018 16:40:
Hi,
Presumably the penultimate LSR has the
Looks sketchy but it works. Has anybody seen/used it before?
--
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Looks sketchy but it works. Has anybody seen/used it before?
--
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
T-FI DROP-FI ]
Worked as advertised (for once).
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443
On 12/10/17 12:39, Andrey
ti
_______
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
--
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Chris Wopat писал 25.10.2017 13:00:
On 10/24/2017 05:30 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 24 octobre 2017 14:29 -0400, Andrey Kostin <ank...@podolsk.ru> :
Straight up saying "don't put public IPs on them" doesn't seem like
the best advice to me. You can certainly do this, we d
Vincent Bernat писал 24.10.2017 18:30:
❦ 24 octobre 2017 14:29 -0400, Andrey Kostin <ank...@podolsk.ru> :
QFX5100 are good as L2 devices for aggregation, we use them in
virtual-chassis. But be careful with planning any L3 services on
them. First, don't put public IPs on them becaus
st routing between irb interfaces and have to give
up and pass L2 to a router, didn't try it on physical ports though.
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
Matt Freitag писал 24.10.2017 09:26:
Karl, we're also looking at QFX5100-48S switches for our aggregation.
I
actually have one in place doing a
regards,
Andrey Kostin
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi all,
Does anybody have experience with using PIM routing on QFX5100
switches? I use PIM on irb interfaces in both upstream and downstream
directions. Receivers are directly connected to downstream irb interface
and upstream irb interface connects to MX router. In my setup SSM groups
work,
I was able to add ordinary communities to l2vpn NLRIs via vrf-export
policy attached to routing-instance to allow them later pass route
reflector's policies. The small caveat is that vrf-export overrides
default policy generated by vrf-target and both communities (target:x:x
and ASN:x) must be
Or you can consider a new feature called Fusion ;)
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.2/information-products/pathway-pages/junos-fusion/junos-fusion.html
Michael Loftis писал 26.04.2016 17:07:
Yeah those are specifically NOT 1/10, just 10G. In general with the
big
MXes the MICs
Mark,
Can you share, what kind of mpls signalling (rsvp, ldp) and backup
technologies (FRR, LFA etc) do you use in rings of ME3600?
Kind regards,
Andrey Kostin
Mark Tinka писал 13.11.2014 19:08:
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 05:09:49 PM Phil Bedard
wrote:
Maybe vMX is the answer to a 1U
78 matches
Mail list logo
