--- Begin Message ---
On 14-Nov-19 14:19, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
There are several places where you can run your keepalieve
a) RPD
b) RE PPMd
c) LC CPU PPMd
d) NPU (dispatch block in the LU/XL)
And it depends on config where you run it.
... and on hardware and on defaults of t
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 18:02, wrote:
> This would be LC CPU:
> NPC10(LAB vty)# show ppm adjacencies
> PPM distributed adjacencies
> Protocol Holdtime (msec) PPM handle Inline
> BFD15001424Yes
> BFD15001426Yes
> BFD1500
> From: Saku Ytti
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 1:31 PM
>
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 15:18, wrote:
>
>
> > But still I don't see how the LU microcode has the ability to actually
> > generate packets, let alone to host a complete daemon.
>
> It does, there is dispatch block in LU, in this
On 14.11.19 14:19, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> Also is there a cmd I can use to switch between LC CPU and LU?
>
> Thanks,
>
> adam
Maybe this - at least for LACP:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/inline-edit-protocols-lacp.html
Just to provide an update on this; Juniper are considering supporting
this ER (IPv6 BFD in hardware) in Junos 20.3R1, which is scheduled in 2H'20.
The time line is not yet committed from Juniper, so my SE is working on
that.
I'll keep you all posted.
Mark.
On 14/Nov/19 15:31, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 15:18, wrote:
> But still I don't see how the LU microcode has the ability to actually
> generate packets, let alone to host a complete daemon.
It does, there is dispatch block in LU, in this callout block you
generate parcel in timed manner, which will be given to some P
> Saku Ytti
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 11:28 AM
>
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:34, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> > On our MX480's, we've known for a very long time that IPv4 BFD is
> > supported in the PFE. However, IPv6 BFD runs on the RE.
>
> PFE is an ambiguous term, it variably means NPU or
On 12/Nov/19 13:28, Saku Ytti wrote:
> PFE is an ambiguous term, it variably means NPU or LC CPU inside JNPR.
>
> There are several places where you can run your keepalieve
>
> a) RPD
> b) RE PPMd
> c) LC CPU PPMd
> d) NPU (dispatch block in the LU/XL)
>
> And it depends on config where you run
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 14:28, Nitzan Tzelniker
wrote:
> Does any body know if the LC CPU on the MX204 has less power than the one in
> MPC7 or in MX10003 LC
> I saw some scaling numbers for subscriber management and it looks like some
> numbers are very low on the MX204 compared to MX10003 LC
>
Does any body know if the LC CPU on the MX204 has less power than the one
in MPC7 or in MX10003 LC
I saw some scaling numbers for subscriber management and it looks like some
numbers are very low on the MX204 compared to MX10003 LC
These are control plane tasks that are distributed to the PFE so I
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:34, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On our MX480's, we've known for a very long time that IPv4 BFD is
> supported in the PFE. However, IPv6 BFD runs on the RE.
PFE is an ambiguous term, it variably means NPU or LC CPU inside JNPR.
There are several places where you can run your ke
On 12/Nov/19 12:02, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Do you run BFD keepalives from LC CPU or NPU? I don't know if MX204
> has real linecard CPU, or if it is like PTX1k where due to cost saving
> there is no separate linecard CPU. If that is the case, and you don't
> want NPU/inline BFD disabling distribute
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 06:55, Rob Foehl wrote:
> Atypical only in that there's no chassis switch involved on the Ethernet
> link... The comment above was about software catching up to what's
> (functionally) missing from the line card, in this case.
I can't parse this, sorry.
> PR1444186 -- GR
On 12/Nov/19 06:55, Rob Foehl wrote:
>
>
>
>
> New platform, new bugs... My only real complaint is how long it takes
> to get fixes turned around these days.
Yep, pretty standard.
Per usual, it will settle down.
Unlike the MX80 and MX104, the MX204 looks to have the stones to stick
aroun
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019, Saku Ytti wrote:
More or less -- it's an RE glued to the non-fabric-facing parts of the
MPC7, which tends to tickle some "interesting" corner cases in code that
assumes there's a fabric chip present.
I don't think RE connects atypically in MX204. RE is ETH+PCI
connected, n
We deployed the MX204 in pairs in 2 new markets that we entered into
recently... Houston and Dallas... the MX204 presents itself as a small and
relatively inexpensive but with nice port and feature versatility with its
MX capabilities.
We decided to roll them out with (2) 100g, (2) 40g, (4) 10g an
Funny thing about the (8) sfp+ ports which do 1/10 gig... when you config a
port for 1 gig, it still is referenced as "xe" ! ... not "ge" as you would
expect. :|
agould@site1-204-1> show system information
Model: mx204
Family: junos
Junos: 18.4R1-S3.1
Hostname: site1-204-1
agould@site1-204-1> s
Hey,
> More or less -- it's an RE glued to the non-fabric-facing parts of the
> MPC7, which tends to tickle some "interesting" corner cases in code that
> assumes there's a fabric chip present.
I don't think RE connects atypically in MX204. RE is ETH+PCI
connected, not fabric.
Can you elaborate
I'll preface this by saying that the MX204 is a great box, and fits many a
niche quite well... However:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, Clarke Morledge wrote:
My understanding is that the MX204 is a 1 RU MPC7, but with a few
modifications.
More or less -- it's an RE glued to the non-fabric-facing parts
We evaluated the 204. It met our current needs for port density, but not
future. A sweet upgrade path from an 80 or 104 though!
Pay close attention to the port allocations. They’re a slight puzzle:
https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/index.html
-b
> On Nov 8, 2019, at 08:40, Clarke M
Hello Gavin,
no, you cannot configured Fusion fpcs that way.
regards
Rolf
> Can't you do:
>
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/rate-selectability-configuring.html#id-configuring-rate-selectability-on-mx204-to-enable-different-port-speeds
>
Can't you do:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/rate-selectability-configuring.html#id-configuring-rate-selectability-on-mx204-to-enable-different-port-speeds
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https
Hello,
this is really interesting.
We have a MX204 (Fusion AD, running Junos 18.4R1) + EX4300 (Fusion SD)
running and found out you cannot set the port speed on the RJ45 ports of
the EX4300 in that combination.
We discussed this 3 months because Juniper wanted to tell us that this is
by design be
> > The 10/40/100 capabilities of the MPC7 look great, but there are few
> isolated
> > cases where I need to support legacy 1 gig, and the MX204 can now handle
> > that. Is this true?
> >
> Yup on the 10g for sure, but if you need 1G in volume you can pair it with a
> simple 1RU switch.
Yep, we p
> Giuliano C. Medalha
> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 4:48 PM
>
> Yes
>
> MX204 is a super router !!!
>
> Very impressive about its performance
>
>
> *Forwarding plane and control plane performance
>
We didn't have it on our testbench yet but we did have MPC7 on there and
were not impr
> Clarke Morledge
> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 4:39 PM
>
> I wanted to resurrect an old thread about the MX204, from a year and a
half
> ago:
>
> https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/64290
>
> My understanding is that the MX204 is a 1 RU MPC7, but with a few
> modifications.
Yup, so be aware of
On 8/Nov/19 18:39, Clarke Morledge wrote:
>
>
> So, if you do not need a lot of speeds and feeds, and can live without
> a physical backup RE, the MX204 would be a good alternative to a MX240.
Our use-case for the MX204 is:
- 10Gbps capability in the Metro. Hardware redundancy not necess
Yes, since 18.1 the MX204 can be configured to support 1G:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/speed-gigether-options.html
IMHO its hard to compare MX204 vs MX240, they are made for different markets.
MX240 can be redundant, MX204 cant.
As f
Yes
MX204 is a super router !!!
Very impressive about its performance
*Forwarding plane and control plane performance
A lot of memory for rib and fib and bng too
It is the best router from the last years from Juniper.
Hope that they create a new release ( sane success ) using MPC10 piz
29 matches
Mail list logo
