Only 1G and 10G transceivers are supported on the MX204 SFP+ ports.
This is also reflected in the Hardware compability tool: https://apps.juniper.net/hct/category/#catKey=100001&modelType=All&pf=MX%20Series where only 1G and 10G are marked as supported.
Thanks. Perhaps I'll ask more specific question...
I'm trying to figure out if I can replace existing MX240 with MX204 where I have the following transceiver currently in 240:
6 GIGE 1000T n/a Molex Inc. 74741-0012 n/a 0.0
and the following configuration:
speed 100m;
link-mode full-duplex;
gigether-options {
flow-control;
auto-negotiation;
}
and (unfortunately) I don't have visibility what's on the other side (and can't change it obviously)...
Can the above be supported on MX204 with SFP-1GE-FE-E-T...?
I have just tested on my lab MX204 with a EX-SFP-1GE-T transceiver towards an EX2300 switchport and I will not expect this to work as what I see is as described below.
MX204 running 18.3R1-S1 and EX2300 running 18.3R1.
1G:
If I force speed 1g on the MX204 interface with EX-SFP-1GE-T transceivers (which is 10/100/1000 capable looking at https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=EX-SFP-1GE-T), I see link 1G on the EX2300 but not on the MX204.
RJ45 transceivers isn't supported looking at the HCT.
100M:
Forcing 100m in both end of the link result in link down in both ends.
If you need this 100 Mbps link, you have to inject an EX3400/EX4300 switch or eg. ACX1100 in between.
EX4300 will be able to runs as an extended linecard by utilizing "Fusion Provider Edge" on the MX204. This requires a license on the MX.
The number for free routes only displays on some platforms not all showing the total table available per route type.
This is present on QFX, ex4600 and OCX platforms.
you could also use the ex2200-c as a type of media convertor in this situation where the optical port on the switch connectes to the MX and the copper ports on the ex2200 easily handle the FE connections.
Making the connection to the MX a trunk port you can bring in a mgmt vlan to remote access the switch and deliver the production vlan for the FE device as a separate tag that you convert to untagged on the handoff.
Valuable input Steve.
@damanloox: If you go for this solution, I would recommend to look at EX2300-C-12T instead as EX2200 series goes EoL in less than two months together with EX3300, EX4200 and EX4550. On top EX2200 has a 25% higher list price than EX2300 series :-)
@alex_kovalev, can we do the policy-options policy-statement route-filter via source IP, not destination IP?
is Model RE-S-1300
Hi Saul,
SC> do we still need to configure below command?
SC> set class-of-service interfaces xe-x/x/x unit 0 classifiers dscp default
I don You can check what classifier you have on the interface:
> show class-of-service interface xe-x/y/z.n
And if it is not dscp, you need to configure it.
SC> can we do the policy-options policy-statement route-filter via source IP, not destination IP?
No, you can not do soure routing with "CoS-based forwarding".
For this you need Filter-Base Forwardind (FBF).
Also in FBF you can match dscp value of the packet and route accordingly.
Thanks,
Alex
Dear experts.
The customer has MX104 router runing on Junos 15.1R7 (which is recommend version as of now). This Junos version will go EOS on 05-Dec-2019 (see EOL dates). I was asked to check for them the recommended upgrade path to other JTAC recommended release 17.3R3.
The wording in upgrade support policy (here) in Junos release notes for 17.3R3 is bit confusing for me as non native speaker. I understood that I can upgrade up to two EEOL release apart.
Junos EOL doc gives me impression that the EEOL releases for MX104 are 15.1R7 -> 16.1R7 -> 17.3R3 (16.2 is not EEOL for MX104, only for certain platforms). Customer should be able to upgrade in one step - from 15.1R7 directly to 17.3R3 based on this (two EEOL releases apart).
Can somebody confirm it / comment further please? I'm not aware if they have single or dual RE setup or features used.
I asked to our Juniper SE but he seems to be overloaded at the moment.
Thank you very much in advance.
Hello Luděk,
I agree with your assessment - your customer should be able to upgrade from 15.1R7 to 17.3R3 in one step without any issues. In practice, it's very possible that there won't be any issues even if he upgrades to something newer than 17.3R3, but Juniper upgrade policy is there to try to make sure that everything will still be working.
It's always a good idea to check it in the lab first (and to prepare and validate corresponding MOP). It may save a lot of time later if something goes wrong during the upgrade, or if urgent downgrade is needed.
Thanks,
Sergii
Hi Sergii.
Many thanks for confirmation.
I agree with you on all points. Customer should be able to upgrade safely even to higher Junos release (especially if they are using base functionalities only). I just wanted to be as safe as possible for the customer. Lab upgrade and detailed MOP are always a good idea but this responsibility will be with customer.
There is no change to underlying FreeBSD version between those two Junos release on MX104. This should make the upgrade less problematic too.
Thank you once again.
any ?
There is no hard limit on MX , you should monitor memory on RE.
Also it depends on line card installed on your MX .
For DPC you can check with
request pfe execute command "show jtree 0 memory" target fpcX.
And you can reallocate jtree memory , here is doc or even this one , your junos version very old
For MPC - just do not worry
In JunOS the command is "show pfe routes summary". Normally you'll have 2 line controller; so you'll see max routes for FPC0 and FPC1
Hi everyone,
I am new to Juniper and what I am trying to achieve is combination of multiple things which I haven't done before.
Goal: Run of ge-0/0/0 all the time and routing via 4G when link down or destination IP (monitoring) not available.
So, Ihave this SRX 320 with an LTE card. The card gets an WAN IP provisioned by a radius in /32 format. This means there is no next hop or default gateway.
PROBLEM 1:
cl-2/0/0 {
dialer-options {
pool 1;
}
act-sim 1;
cellular-options {
sim 1 {
select-profile profile-id 1;
radio-access automatic;
gateway x.x.x.x/32;This article says that a gateway is needed for /32 IPs. However, when configured as per the config above, I get these results:
Logical interface dl0.0 (Index 79) (SNMP ifIndex 502)
Flags: Up Point-To-Point SNMP-Traps 0x0 Encapsulation: ENET2
Dialer:
State: Active, Dial pool: 1
Dial strings: 0413895052
Subordinate interfaces: cl-2/0/0 (Index 151)
Activation delay: 0, Deactivation delay: 0
Initial route check delay: 120
Redial delay: 3
Callback wait period: 5
Load threshold: 0, Load interval: 60
Bandwidth: 300mbps
Input packets : 72
Output packets: 6
Security: Zone: Null
Protocol inet, MTU: 1446
Flags: Sendbcast-pkt-to-re, Negotiate-Address
Addresses, Flags: Kernel Is-Preferred Is-Primary
Destination: x.x.x.96/28, Local: x.x.x.104,
Broadcast: x.x.x.111Aand this from show route:
inet.0: 9 destinations, 10 routes (9 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
0.0.0.0/0 *[Static/1] 00:14:59
> to 192.168.100.254 via ge-0/0/0.0
[Access-internal/12] 00:00:07, metric2 0> to x.x.x.105 via dl0.0So, since the interface gets /32, it means there is no IP for GW, so option to set "set interfaces cl-interface cellular-options sim sim-slot gateway ip-address/mask" on the cellular won't work. I tried set up another hop on it for test, but it did not show anywhere in the routing table.
PROBLEM 2
Even when pushing /32 to the interface, you can see in one of the config examples above it gets /28. Completely for no reason.
I tried going with routing monitor hoping I can tell it which interface to use whn going out, but this option is not even available (or at leaast I did not find it). Cisco has option to set interface + next hop IP even on non point to point interfaces.
I am not sure whether I am missing something or what. Any advice will be appraciated. Thanks in advance.
There is no exect limit on MX platform bacause it is depends on network topology/frr/filters/knobs in config and some other options .
Better to monitor pfe resources, for example with this command
show system resource-monitor fpc
show pfe route summary
This command only shows you number of installed routes per table but not how many can be installed,
Perfect!
And if I do not have the active "show jtree...", should not I worry?
Hi Kronicklez,
Starting in Junos OS Release 14.1, you can configure MC-LAG interfaces on logical systems within a router.
You may refer the below two sections from the link for details:
Sample Configuration Scenario for MC-LAG on Logical Systems
Guidelines for Configuring MC-LAG on Logical Systems
Regards,
Rahul Gautam