Re: [j-nsp] force-64bit

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Tim Hoffman wrote: > > 64bit RPD is newer, and by nature will have more bugs - so don't run this > unless you need it. Check this with "show task memory" - this will show what > you have used of the RPD accessible memory. As Phil notes,

Re: [j-nsp] force-64bit

. Is this a theoretical use case, or is there an actual need? Best Regards, -Phil Rosenthal > On Jun 1, 2016, at 3:58 AM, Theo Voss <m...@theo-voss.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > has anybody enabled „system processes force-64bit“ on 64bit Junos? Have you > done this during daily ops

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 5:37 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote: > > > > On 25/May/16 23:33, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > >> There is a different network card driver, so it would require a different >> kernel. > > Which needs time, porting and tes

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 25/May/16 21:50, raf wrote: > >> >> >> This is really strange. I don't see technical reason why 14, 13 or >> even old one could not use a newer RE. After all it was just a newer >> CPU and more RAM. >> It

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > I would personally be very interested in jumping to 16.1 as soon as > practice, as BGP is supposedly in its own thread. Maybe RPD in its own > core. So that might bring lot of stability. RPD is already essentially in it's own

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > > So how long before Junos 15.1R4 or higher will be the offical JTAC > Recommended Junos Software Version for MX Series with NG MPCs? Right now > it's Junos 14.1R7 Based on how things have gone in the past, the

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > > Assuming we are not going to be using these new RE's to load any 3rd party > software on them, the RE-S-X6-64G-BB will just be a quicker processor with > more ram compared to an older RE right? Are there any other

Re: [j-nsp] Multi Core on JUNOS?

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > > Does anyone have an update on when Juniper will release SMP (symmetrical > multi processor) aka the ability to use multiple cores? Do you think the > second core on the MX80 or MX104 will ever be used? Does the RE-2000

Re: [j-nsp] Policy-statement to match on metrics less than, greater than, or within a range

On Aug 27, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Alexander Arseniev arsen...@btinternet.com wrote: There is a floor for MED and it is 0. What You could do is : term 1 then { metric subtract 1000; next term } term 2 from metric 0; then { local-preference 100; accept } You won't be able to keep the

[j-nsp] Policy-statement to match on metrics less than, greater than, or within a range

Hello all, On Cisco, it is possible to write a route policy as such: route-policy test if med le 1000 then set local-preference 100 endif end-policy Is there any way to do the same thing with Juniper? It seems that the “from metric” statement only accepts a static value (comparable

Re: [j-nsp] MX240 SCBE2 10G ports

On Aug 19, 2015, at 8:51 AM, John Center john.cen...@outlook.com wrote: Hi, Are there any limitations in using the SCBE2's 10G ports? I've heard that they can't be used as regular data ports. Is this true? I saw that Rob Hass asked a similar question in December, but it looks like no

Re: [j-nsp] MX240 SCBE2 10G ports

On Aug 19, 2015, at 11:42 AM, John Center john.cen...@outlook.com wrote: Thanks, Phil. Doesn't make much sense then. If these ports were usable, it would make the MX240 much more attractive from our perspective. I suggest you bring this up with your Juniper sales rep :) Juniper is very

Re: [j-nsp] Junos power-off not graceful

failure, you will obviously not have any time to make even an automated shutdown, and this type of pull the plug test is what will happen. Best Regards, -Phil Rosenthal ISPrime ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https

Re: [j-nsp] jtree0 Memory full on MX480?

on that side? Best, Jeff Am 22.07.2015 um 02:45 schrieb Phil Rosenthal: Disabling Basic-Table certainly bought you some time. Agree that it still does not look good. I suspect that you are running into a software issue. 11.4 is no longer a supported version, 12.3 is the minimum

Re: [j-nsp] jtree0 Memory full on MX480?

in page alloc) GOT: 24739 pages partially used GOT:1691 pages free (max contiguous = 380) Still doesn't look to glorious, right? Best, Jeff Am 22.07.2015 um 01:06 schrieb Phil Rosenthal: Can you paste the output of these commands: show conf | display set | match rpf-check

Re: [j-nsp] jtree0 Memory full on MX480?

Regards, -Phil Rosenthal On Jul 21, 2015, at 6:56 PM, Jeff Meyers jeff.mey...@gmx.net wrote: Hello list, we seem to be running into limits with a MX480 with RE-2000 and 2x DPCE-4XGE-R since we are seeing these new messages in the syslog: Jul 22 00:50:36 cr0 fpc0 RSMON: Resource

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 Limitations

Comments inline below. On Jun 24, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Colton Conor colton.co...@gmail.com wrote: We are considering upgrading to a Juniper MX104, but another vendor (not Juniper) pointed out the following limitations about the MX104 in their comparison. I am wondering how much of it is

Re: [j-nsp] JTAC Recommended Junos Software Versions Old?

We were hit by this. 13.3R4 is safe from this issue, and 13.3R6 is apparently fixed but we have not yet upgraded. I believe the issue is related to minor differences in hardware because we do not have problems with 13.3R5 on any routers except for one, which has essentially identical hardware

Re: [j-nsp] inline jflow

On Dec 8, 2013, at 1:09 PM, moki vom...@gmail.com wrote: when i execute the command show services accounting flow inline-jflow fpc-slot 0 The counters don't grow Flow information FPC Slot: 0 Flow Packets: 9811498, Flow Bytes: 7364152991 Active Flows: 4294967295, Total Flows: