iguration groups FOO' to see everything concerning FOO,
without having to wade through everything that concerns FIE or FUM.
- --
Thomas Bellman, National Supercomputer Centre, Linköping Univ., Sweden
"Life IS pain, highness. Anyone who tells ! bellman @ nsc . liu . se
differently is sel
On 2017-08-09 09:05, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> I am generating a default route to distribute with a policy statement
> like that:
>
> #v+
> policy-statement v4-DEFAULT-ROUTE-GENERATE {
[...]
> }
> #v-
>
> This works just fine but there are a lot of contributing routes (about
> 400k) to
for just ingress or egress, or even just a total for the
entire system.
The switch is running Junos 17.2R1 if that matters.
- --
Thomas Bellman, National Supercomputer Centre, Linköping Univ., Sweden
"We don't understand the software, and! bellman @ nsc . liu . se
sometimes we
On 2018-05-17 02:41, Brian Rak wrote:
> We're not even doing 10gbit of traffic, so the buffers should last at
> least a little bit.
And you're not hitting 10 Gbit/s even under very short bursts of a few
milliseconds? Microbursts like that don't show up in "normal" usage
graphs where you only
On 2018-05-16 18:06, Brian Rak wrote:
> We've been trying to track down why our 5100's are dropping traffic
> due to lack of buffer space, even with very low link utilization.
There's only 12 Mbyte of buffer space on the Trident II chip. If you
get 10 Gbit/s bursts simultaneously on two ports,
have some other SNMP table I
should look in to be able to map neighbours to interfaces?
(I see the same behaviour on Junos 17.2R1.13, 17.3R1-S3 and
18.1R1.9.)
--
Thomas Bellman, National Supercomputer Centre, Linköping Univ., Sweden
"Life IS pain, highness. Anyone who tells ! bell
er
OSPF networks.
--
Thomas Bellman, National Supercomputer Centre, Linköping Univ., Sweden
"We don't understand the software, and sometimes we don't understand
the hardware, but we can *see* the blinking lights!"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
On 2018-06-25 18:22, Scott Whyte wrote:
> BGP, as you say, provides excellent filtering capabilities. What
> does OSPF/ISIS bring to the table?
Automatic discovery of peers, and thus less unique configuration. You
don't need to configure each peer individually, just the interface. If
you do
and-leaf network myself. I am trying to
migrate towards one, but we still have several "impurities", and
have STP running in several places.)
--
Thomas Bellman <bell...@nsc.liu.se>
National Supercomputer Centre, Linköping University, Sweden
signat
bout many vendors) about limitations or problems
with virtual chassis to feel comfortable with that.
--
Thomas Bellman, National Supercomputer Centre, Linköping Univ., Sweden
"We don't understand the software, and sometimes we don't understand
the hardware, but we can *see* the blinking light
On 2018-08-07 14:21, Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp wrote:
> Sorry, my first email was not clear enough that I require Base-T
> (copper) ports.
> QFX5110 etc. are looking great on paper, but with copper optics the
> docs are saying:
> ###
> Caution
> Do not place a copper transceiver in an
On 2018-08-19 08:11, Nathan Ward wrote:
> I would be interested in a way to build a command alias with
> `| display inheritance | display commit-scripts | display omit | exclude #`
> or something - `exclude #` isn’t the best either, as # is often in int
> description etc.
Slightly aside: instead
On 2018-04-04 21:09, Niall Donaghy wrote:
> Even more sad to see that 1G ports retain their xe- naming rather than
> changing to ge- as you would hope and expect.
I have never understood the reason for having different names for
ports depending on the speed of the transceiver. To me, it just
On 2019-01-22 12:02 MET, Pavel Lunin wrote:
>> (I am myself running a mostly DC network, with a little bit of campus
>> network on the side, and we use bandwidth-based metrics in our OSPF.
>> But we have standardized on using 3 Tbit/s as our "reference bandwidth",
>> and Junos doesn't allow us to
On 2019-01-16 16:41 MET, Saku Ytti wrote:
> No one should be using bandwidth based metrics, it's quite
> non-sensical. I would recommend that if you have only few egress
> points for given prefix, adopt role based metric P-PE, P-P-city,
> P-P-country etc. If you have many egress options for given
On 2018-12-21 23:22 UTC, Anderson, Charles R wrote:
> Can anyone shed some light on WHY this change was made? I much prefer
> the old behavior.
>
> From PR1281947:
>
> "The behavior of the "interface-range" configuration statement changed
> in 14.1X53 and 15.1. Prior to 14.1X53 and 15.1, more
On 2018-12-13 16:10, Chris Adams wrote:
> While configuring a new MX204, I noticed this:
>
> admin@newrouter> request vmhost power-o?
> Possible completions:
> power-offPower off the software on RE
> power-on Power on the system
>
> Umm, why is there a CLI
On 2019-03-26 21:11 -0400, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> Not a solution, but an ignorant question - Is there a function to
> kill (and/or restart) the process in this type of scenario? On
> IOS-XR, there were specific XR CLI wrappers for restarting a process
> as a means to fix stuff like processes run
On 2019-03-14 13:40 -0400, Andrey Kostin wrote:
> 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 protects existing investments
Gah, I hate that wording. To me it
On 2019-03-18 21:05 UTC, Tim Rayner wrote:
> As I understand it, when a 400G port is enabled, 3 of the 100G ports
> are made un-available (not sure whether there is an option for sub-rate
> on the 400G port keeping more of the 100G ports available), hence there
> will be a limit of 1.5 Tbps per
On 2019-03-18 23:24 +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Cheaper is subjective. To a small and dynamic shop CAPEX may represent
> majority of cost. To an incumbent CAPEX may be entirely irrelevant,
> money is cheap, but approving hardware to network may be massive
> multiyear project. This is why platforms
On 2019-05-25 22:38 -0400, Philippe Girard wrote:
> Anyone running production Junos 18.X on QFX5100?
>
> JTAC recommended still says 17.3R3-S4 but I'd really like to jump to 18 for
> some new features it offers.
We have one QFX5100-48S running 18.3R1.9 (the other QFX5100 we have
runs
used to mangle them - which is very different from saying
> that packet's CRC is used as input.
I don't think anyone has said that any product use the ethernet
packet's CRC for LAG/ECMP hashing. Just that they might reuse
the CRC circuitry in the NPU/ASIC for calculating this hash, but
based on
ight
be that the Dell switches got some newer version of the adapters; I'm fairly
certain the adapters in the Dells are ones we received in 2018, while I suspect
the adapters in the Juniper are ones we got in the 2012-2014 timespan.
I might be able to check and test sometime later this week, but no p
On 2021-09-13 13:56, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
> I have a strange clue with an QFX3500-48S4Q, and with "simple" VRRP
> setup.
>
> On port xe-0/0/6.0 I have a infrastructure (cisco switches) with a
> VLAN 3016 who want to be VRRP with an MX204 on et-0/1/0.0.
>
> Current config of the switch :
>
>
On 2021-11-19 09:49, james list via juniper-nsp wrote:
> I try to rephrase the question you do not understand: if I enable cut
> through or change buffer is it traffic affecting ?
On the QFX 5xxx series and (at least) EX 46xx series, the forwarding
ASIC needs to reset in order to change between
space in Trident 2, which is used in
QFX5100 and EX4600, 3 Mbyte is used for per-port dedicated
buffers, and 9 Mbyte is shared between all ports. I believe
on later chips an even larger percentage is shared.
--
Thomas Bellman, National Supercomputer Centre, Linköping Univ., Sweden
&qu
On 2021-10-26 23:27, Han Hwei Woo via juniper-nsp wrote:
> Does anyone know if there are any differences between the
> QFX5100-48S versions with or without the '3'?
The normal version of QFX5100 have two management ethernet ports, one
SFP port and one twisted pair ("RJ45") port, while the
On 2022-01-25 22:53, Chris Adams via juniper-nsp wrote:
> I wasn't planning to use a virtual link-local address, so I didn't put
> one. The JUNOS VRRP for v6 example doesn't include one, although then
> the JUNOS documentation for virtual-link-local-address is oddly
> confusing:
For IPv6, the
r ports 5, 8 and 14 in their respective groups.)
I hope that's a bug in the port checker, not actual behaviour by
the MX304...
--
Thomas Bellman, National Supercomputer Centre, Linköping Univ., Sweden
"We don't understand the software, and sometimes we don't understand
the hardware, but we can *
o work in a PTX10001-36MR,
if you configure it with
interfaces {
et-0/1/4 {
number-of-sub-ports 4;
speed 25g;
}
}
but that syntax is not accepted by Junos on QFX5120 (I suppose it is
specific to Junos Evolved).
--
Thomas Bellman, National
31 matches
Mail list logo
