Hi Luke,
L3 gateway for evpn is not supported for EX 4600 on this release.
It`s supported for these EX devices starting with these JUNOS releases.
Hello Jonas!
Can you tell me what the IR / R equivalent of the Advanced and Premium licenses of the Flex Program would be? Or does it not have an exact correlation?
Thank you!
Judging for the amount of "carrier transitions" on edge1 it may be a hardware issue on ae2 possibly.
you can verify which of the child ports on the aggregated are presenting most of these output errors.
you can also clear the interface statistics and then check if the carrier transitinos start incrementing quickly.
>clear interface statistics ae2
check if there are tail-drops (possible congestion)
>show interfaces queue ae2
If I'm reading this right, the EX4600 can't route between VNIs at all. Is that right?
I'm just wondering what the point of the anycast gateway is then?
Thanks
I didn't realise that! Hopefully that solves the issue, thanks.
Hi,
I'll be adding an export policy on one of our routers. It already has an import policy running with it. If I add an export policy, will all the ibgp neighborship reset?
I'm just worried that it might reset once the configuration is confirmed.
Hi,
No adding new export policy will not reset the BGP neighbours.
If this solves your problem, please mark this post as "Accepted Solution."
Hi Lucas,
in general IR is very close to advanced and R is basically matching premium.
There are still some minor differences like with the old MX204-IR/R you had full scale jflow where with the flex licensing it's only sampling in advanced.
IR/R scale and features described here: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/licensing/topics/topic-map/software_licensing_requirements.html#LicenseVariantsForMPCs-8A6ACE53
Flex advanced and premium described here: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/licensing/topics/concept/flex-software-subscription-model-support.html#mx-mpc
If you have a specific question regarding which tier you need, please state your requirements and I'll do my best to help :-)
Thank you very much.
Hello,
I came across a weird issue i never noticed before and i was wondering if anyone know if this "is just how it is" or if there is a way to fix it. when i pull routes from the BGP session vs SNMP. I noticed that BGP has my prepend rules for incoming routes (Using the EXPAND-AS) from an NSP and SNMP does not.
Is there a way to make SNMP have the prepend or is that not possible. It's almost as its ignoring my import rules. I've looked around the set commands and i cant find anything that would help. This is on an MX480.
Example:
{
"routers": [
{
"address": "208.xxx.xxx.xxx",
"data_source": "BGP",
"peers": [
{
"address": "38.xxx.xxx.xxx",
"aspath": "174 174 174 1742",
"best": 0,
"localperf": 100,
"med": 73070,
"nexthop": "38.xxx.xxx.xxx",
"origin": 0,
"path_id": 0
}
{
"address": "208.xxx.xxx.xxx",
"data_source": "SNMP",
"peers": [
{
"address": "38.xxx.xxx.xxx",
"aspath": "174 1742",
"best": 2,
"localperf": 4294967295,
"med": 73070,
"nexthop": "38.xxx.xxx.xxx",
"origin": 1,
"path_id": 3
}
~ #
Thanks,
Hi,
Can you share the configuration used to pull routes using SNMP ?
Its closed source. However they are able to disable since i configured the BGP session to send multiple paths. So We can close this out :cathappy:
Hi All,
I have a very old mx104 that need upgrade from the 14.2R2.8 to the 17.3R3-S7 . License are installed to make active the 4 uplinks port of the router.
Upgrade path will be
############# 14.2 from here to 15.1 16.1<<< to here 16.2 17.1 17.2<<< then here 17.3<<< finall reach target release #############
and after upgrade i am expecting to have 2 situations:
1) license not working -> i will install back
2)License is working
Before performing the upgrade i want to take snapshot to use it in case of problem during the upgrade. Snapshot will recover configuration and the sw release installed at the time of the command request system snapshot was issued.
Question number 1: do you agree with my sw upgrade path?
Question number 2: do you see any problem between license and sw release installed? I think the 2 conecpt are not tied togheter
Question number 3: I am reading from here https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/topic-map/mx104-host-subsystem.html that mx104 has basically only one NAND flash (da0) plus 2 external USB storage devices (usb0 amd usb1). Now i do not have any snapshot taken so far but when i run the command i got this error that in my opinion it makes sense because there is no NAND da1 but at the same time useless as message. Did i get correct that this message can be ignored?
More, if i want to take the snapshot of the current sw+config i understood that i need to install one usb pen drive on port 0 for example (USB0) and run the command
so snapshot wil be saved on USB0.
Now, in case of problem to bring the router back as it was before, is enough to simply insert the USB0 and the router will recover the snapshot during the boot sequence without having me doing anything basically. Is this "assumption" correct?
Many thanks for your support on this.
Fab.
Hi Fab,
To answer your concerns :
1) Is there a specific reason why you are considering to upgrade this in 3 stages? I believe you can achieve this in 2 steps as well. First to an intermediate version( major release) and then to the final version.
2) I have personally not seen issues here.
3) The error message is expected on lower-end MX platforms like Mx5 to MX-104 when we use ‘request system snapshot’ without specifying the storage location where there is no Compact Flash and SSD separation present.
So when it comes to the ‘request system snapshot’ command usage, it usually tries to apply for da1 which is hard disk/SSD for the high-end platforms which is resulting in this error message. On MX104 routers, you can back up your software installation on an external USB storage media device with knob ‘request system snapshot media usb01 or usb02’. Yes, you may ignore the da1 media missing error.
To back up files on an MX104 to a specified external storage media device:
https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB12880
Hope this helps 🙂
Please mark "Accepted Solution" if this helps you solve your query. Kudos are always appreciated.
Hi,
I have a similar challenge.
I have a separate link to iBGP but I set up iBGP session between loopback interfaces. I have OSPF area 0 sessions between the physical dedicated SVI interfaces of MX routers. Using other interfaces I created a separate OSPF NSSA area to down of my network to broadcast the default route as Tedy showed. The question is how to limit the redistribution of 0.0.0.0/0 route in area 0 (used for iBGP)?
Regards,
Mateusz
Hi all,
Starting out with bgp fundamentals. I have a 2 router topology and am trying to establish an iBGP session between them:
---R0--xe-/4/1/18------xe-3/0/0--R1---
In show bgp summary output, I see the state as established but not seeing anything in the fields active/received/accepted/ like 0/0/0 as observed in my places on the internet. Am I missing something in the configuration?
Also, noticing that routes are being added through ospf and not via bgp in the routing table, even though ospf preference is set to 200.
Not sure if any routes are getting added via bgp:
Any help would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Vinay
Hi Vinay,
you don't see routes because the peer is not advertising routes , you need to configure export policy on the peer to enable advertisement ,
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/basic-routing-policies.html
If this solves your problem, please mark this post as "Accepted Solution."
Hi Vinay,
In your case you need to export OSPF routes on the router to BGP by configuring export policy under BGP , as the example below
first configure the policy
# show policy-options
policy-statement test {
term 1 {
from protocol ospf;
then accept;
}
}
then enable it under BGP
# show protocols bgp
group ibgp {
export test;
}
If this solves your problem, please mark this post as "Accepted Solution."
Hi A.A,
This is the default policy in the documentation for BGP: "Readvertise all active BGP routes to all BGP speakers, while following protocol-specific rules that prohibit one IBGP speaker from readvertising routes learned from another IBGP speaker, unless it is functioning as a route reflector". Had a couple of questions:
1) Didn't read anything about advertisements of directly connected routes for iBGP. Are they prohibited by default?
2) Can the default behaviour that an IBGP speaker is prohibited from readvertising routes learned from another IBGP speaker be changed with a routing policy?
Thanks,
Vinay
Hi Vinay,
for question 1 , as you said the default rule is to re-advertise the BGP routes , in oder to advertise any other protocol through BGP you will need export policy , including the direct routes , using the term2 in the following policy allow direct routes to be advertised
# show policy-options
policy-statement test {
term 1 {
from protocol ospf;
then accept;
}
term 2 {
from protocol direct;
}
}
for question 2 , No this can not be done using routing policy
If this solves your problem, please mark this post as "Accepted Solution."