Mailing List Archive

Hope this link helps ....

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos56/swconfig56-interf
aces/html/interfaces-ethernet-config34.html#1014780

--harshit

-----Original Message-----
From: hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com [mailto:hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:04 PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; juniper@groupstudy.com
Subject: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features


Hi,


I have some questions regarding to ethernet aggregated features
(802.3ad)
on M-series,
1. Do I need to invest a special PIC for implementing fast ethernet
aggregated features on M-series ?
2. can Juniper implementation for 802.3ad do load balances traffic
(unicast
traffic) and redudancy/fail-over (unicast traffic) as well ?


----------- ------------
| M5 | | M5 |
----------- ------------
| | FE | | FE
| | | |
------------- FE -------------
| switch | -------------| switch |
------------- -------------
| FE
|
-------------
| M5 |
-------------

any helps would be apreciated.

thanks & regards
hendro


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .



_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Hendro:
I hope this help

1. Do I need to invest a special PIC for implementing fast ethernet
aggregated features on M-series ?
>>>> It is not necessary special PIC to do aggregate...

2. can Juniper implementation for 802.3ad do load balances traffic
(unicast
traffic) and redudancy/fail-over (unicast traffic) as well ?
>>>> YES..

Regards

Is it normal to not be able to do this with fxp interfaces?

I tried following the instructions at the link below, but the fxp interfaces
do not appear to support 'fastether-options'. It would be nice to use an AE
interface for management as it would then provide layer 1 failover.

Thanks,

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harshit Kumar" <harshit@juniper.net>
To: <hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com>; <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>;
<juniper@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features


> Hope this link helps ....
>
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos56/swconfig56-interf
> aces/html/interfaces-ethernet-config34.html#1014780
>
> --harshit
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com [mailto:hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:04 PM
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; juniper@groupstudy.com
> Subject: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I have some questions regarding to ethernet aggregated features
> (802.3ad)
> on M-series,
> 1. Do I need to invest a special PIC for implementing fast ethernet
> aggregated features on M-series ?
> 2. can Juniper implementation for 802.3ad do load balances traffic
> (unicast
> traffic) and redudancy/fail-over (unicast traffic) as well ?
>
>
> ----------- ------------
> | M5 | | M5 |
> ----------- ------------
> | | FE | | FE
> | | | |
> ------------- FE -------------
> | switch | -------------| switch |
> ------------- -------------
> | FE
> |
> -------------
> | M5 |
> -------------
>
> any helps would be apreciated.
>
> thanks & regards
> hendro
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

It is normal. Aggregating the management Ethernet interface is not
supported.

-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of Robert Viau
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:23 AM
To: Harshit Kumar; hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features


Is it normal to not be able to do this with fxp interfaces?

I tried following the instructions at the link below, but the fxp interfaces
do not appear to support 'fastether-options'. It would be nice to use an AE
interface for management as it would then provide layer 1 failover.

Thanks,

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harshit Kumar" <harshit@juniper.net>
To: <hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com>; <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>;
<juniper@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features


> Hope this link helps ....
>
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos56/swconfig56-interf
> aces/html/interfaces-ethernet-config34.html#1014780
>
> --harshit
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com [mailto:hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:04 PM
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; juniper@groupstudy.com
> Subject: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I have some questions regarding to ethernet aggregated features
> (802.3ad)
> on M-series,
> 1. Do I need to invest a special PIC for implementing fast ethernet
> aggregated features on M-series ?
> 2. can Juniper implementation for 802.3ad do load balances traffic
> (unicast
> traffic) and redudancy/fail-over (unicast traffic) as well ?
>
>
> ----------- ------------
> | M5 | | M5 |
> ----------- ------------
> | | FE | | FE
> | | | |
> ------------- FE -------------
> | switch | -------------| switch |
> ------------- -------------
> | FE
> |
> -------------
> | M5 |
> -------------
>
> any helps would be apreciated.
>
> thanks & regards
> hendro
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

At 08:23 PM 4/3/2003, Robert Viau wrote:
>Is it normal to not be able to do this with fxp interfaces?
>
>I tried following the instructions at the link below, but the fxp interfaces
>do not appear to support 'fastether-options'. It would be nice to use an AE
>interface for management as it would then provide layer 1 failover.

what would be the gain if you have one link (fxp0) in an ethernet trunk ?

Josef


>Thanks,
>
>Rob
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Harshit Kumar" <harshit@juniper.net>
>To: <hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com>; <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>;
><juniper@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:09 PM
>Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
>
>
> > Hope this link helps ....
> >
> > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos56/swconfig56-interf
> > aces/html/interfaces-ethernet-config34.html#1014780
> >
> > --harshit
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com [mailto:hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:04 PM
> > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; juniper@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I have some questions regarding to ethernet aggregated features
> > (802.3ad)
> > on M-series,
> > 1. Do I need to invest a special PIC for implementing fast ethernet
> > aggregated features on M-series ?
> > 2. can Juniper implementation for 802.3ad do load balances traffic
> > (unicast
> > traffic) and redudancy/fail-over (unicast traffic) as well ?
> >
> >
> > ----------- ------------
> > | M5 | | M5 |
> > ----------- ------------
> > | | FE | | FE
> > | | | |
> > ------------- FE -------------
> > | switch | -------------| switch |
> > ------------- -------------
> > | FE
> > |
> > -------------
> > | M5 |
> > -------------
> >
> > any helps would be apreciated.
> >
> > thanks & regards
> > hendro
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > http://mail2web.com/ .
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 08:30:25PM +0200, Josef Buchsteiner wrote:
> At 08:23 PM 4/3/2003, Robert Viau wrote:
> >Is it normal to not be able to do this with fxp interfaces?
> >
> >I tried following the instructions at the link below, but the fxp
> >interfaces
> >do not appear to support 'fastether-options'. It would be nice to use an
> >AE
> >interface for management as it would then provide layer 1 failover.
>
> what would be the gain if you have one link (fxp0) in an ethernet trunk ?

Perhaps he means over 2 RE's?

--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

Well I've not physically looked at this M40 recently, but I noticed remotely
that it has more than one fxp interface :

Hardware inventory:
Item Version Part number Serial number Description
Chassis 22138 m40
<snip>
SCB REV 02 710-001838 <snip> Internet Processor
II
<snip>

rviau@router> show interfaces brief | match fxp
Physical interface: fxp0, Administratively down, Physical link is Up
Physical interface: fxp1, Enabled, Physical link is Up
Logical interface fxp1.0

rviau@router>

I figured running them to separate hubs and then into a management network
might add some additional redundancy over a single link.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Josef Buchsteiner" <josefb@juniper.net>
To: "Robert Viau" <rviau@wcom.ca>; "Harshit Kumar" <harshit@juniper.net>;
<hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com>; <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features


> At 08:23 PM 4/3/2003, Robert Viau wrote:
> >Is it normal to not be able to do this with fxp interfaces?
> >
> >I tried following the instructions at the link below, but the fxp
interfaces
> >do not appear to support 'fastether-options'. It would be nice to use an
AE
> >interface for management as it would then provide layer 1 failover.
>
> what would be the gain if you have one link (fxp0) in an ethernet trunk ?
>
> Josef
>
>
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Rob
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Harshit Kumar" <harshit@juniper.net>
> >To: <hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com>; <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>;
> ><juniper@groupstudy.com>
> >Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:09 PM
> >Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
> >
> >
> > > Hope this link helps ....
> > >
> > >
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos56/swconfig56-interf
> > > aces/html/interfaces-ethernet-config34.html#1014780
> > >
> > > --harshit
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com [mailto:hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:04 PM
> > > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; juniper@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > I have some questions regarding to ethernet aggregated features
> > > (802.3ad)
> > > on M-series,
> > > 1. Do I need to invest a special PIC for implementing fast ethernet
> > > aggregated features on M-series ?
> > > 2. can Juniper implementation for 802.3ad do load balances traffic
> > > (unicast
> > > traffic) and redudancy/fail-over (unicast traffic) as well ?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------- ------------
> > > | M5 | | M5 |
> > > ----------- ------------
> > > | | FE | | FE
> > > | | | |
> > > ------------- FE -------------
> > > | switch | -------------| switch |
> > > ------------- -------------
> > > | FE
> > > |
> > > -------------
> > > | M5 |
> > > -------------
> > >
> > > any helps would be apreciated.
> > >
> > > thanks & regards
> > > hendro
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > > http://mail2web.com/ .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> >http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>

The FXP interface is only for out of band management on Juniper routers. You
cannot run any dynamic routing protocols on these interfaces as well. Only
allowed static routes.

Kesva



-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of Paul Goyette
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:30 PM
To: Robert Viau; Harshit Kumar; hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com;
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features


It is normal. Aggregating the management Ethernet interface is not
supported.

-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of Robert Viau
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:23 AM
To: Harshit Kumar; hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features


Is it normal to not be able to do this with fxp interfaces?

I tried following the instructions at the link below, but the fxp interfaces
do not appear to support 'fastether-options'. It would be nice to use an AE
interface for management as it would then provide layer 1 failover.

Thanks,

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harshit Kumar" <harshit@juniper.net>
To: <hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com>; <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>;
<juniper@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features


> Hope this link helps ....
>
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos56/swconfig56-interf
> aces/html/interfaces-ethernet-config34.html#1014780
>
> --harshit
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com [mailto:hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:04 PM
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; juniper@groupstudy.com
> Subject: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I have some questions regarding to ethernet aggregated features
> (802.3ad)
> on M-series,
> 1. Do I need to invest a special PIC for implementing fast ethernet
> aggregated features on M-series ?
> 2. can Juniper implementation for 802.3ad do load balances traffic
> (unicast
> traffic) and redudancy/fail-over (unicast traffic) as well ?
>
>
> ----------- ------------
> | M5 | | M5 |
> ----------- ------------
> | | FE | | FE
> | | | |
> ------------- FE -------------
> | switch | -------------| switch |
> ------------- -------------
> | FE
> |
> -------------
> | M5 |
> -------------
>
> any helps would be apreciated.
>
> thanks & regards
> hendro
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:46:22 -0500
"Robert Viau" <rviau@wcom.ca> wrote:

RV> Well I've not physically looked at this M40 recently, but I noticed remotely
RV> that it has more than one fxp interface :
RV>
RV> Hardware inventory:
RV> Item Version Part number Serial number Description
RV> Chassis 22138 m40
RV> <snip>
RV> SCB REV 02 710-001838 <snip> Internet Processor
RV> II
RV> <snip>
RV>
RV> rviau@router> show interfaces brief | match fxp
RV> Physical interface: fxp0, Administratively down, Physical link is Up
RV> Physical interface: fxp1, Enabled, Physical link is Up
RV> Logical interface fxp1.0
RV>
RV> rviau@router>
RV>
RV> I figured running them to separate hubs and then into a management network
RV> might add some additional redundancy over a single link.

The fxp1 interface is the link between the RE and the PFE and shouldn't
ever be touched by any configuration attempts. This could mess up
communication between the RE and PFE and cause problems with the routers
functionality.

FXP0 is the out of band management interface and each RE in a router has
one. The M40 only has one out of band management interface, because it
only has one RE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Wallace JTAC Support Engineer
jwalla@jtac.juniper.net Juniper Networks, Inc.
(801) 629-6918 http://support.juniper.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

fxp1 is the internal connection between the RE and the PFE. You have no
access to that interface and should not *under any circumstances* change the
configuration of that interface. Doing so will stop the router from
communicating between the RE and the PFE - so no forwarding of packets!

Guy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Viau [mailto:rviau@wcom.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 7:46 PM
> To: Harshit Kumar; hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com;
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net;
> Josef Buchsteiner
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
>
>
> Well I've not physically looked at this M40 recently, but I
> noticed remotely
> that it has more than one fxp interface :
>
> Hardware inventory:
> Item Version Part number Serial number Description
> Chassis 22138 m40
> <snip>
> SCB REV 02 710-001838 <snip>
> Internet Processor
> II
> <snip>
>
> rviau@router> show interfaces brief | match fxp
> Physical interface: fxp0, Administratively down, Physical link is Up
> Physical interface: fxp1, Enabled, Physical link is Up
> Logical interface fxp1.0
>
> rviau@router>
>
> I figured running them to separate hubs and then into a
> management network
> might add some additional redundancy over a single link.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Josef Buchsteiner" <josefb@juniper.net>
> To: "Robert Viau" <rviau@wcom.ca>; "Harshit Kumar"
> <harshit@juniper.net>;
> <hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com>; <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
>
>
> > At 08:23 PM 4/3/2003, Robert Viau wrote:
> > >Is it normal to not be able to do this with fxp interfaces?
> > >
> > >I tried following the instructions at the link below, but the fxp
> interfaces
> > >do not appear to support 'fastether-options'. It would be
> nice to use an
> AE
> > >interface for management as it would then provide layer 1 failover.
> >
> > what would be the gain if you have one link (fxp0) in an
> ethernet trunk ?
> >
> > Josef
> >
> >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Rob
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Harshit Kumar" <harshit@juniper.net>
> > >To: <hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com>; <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>;
> > ><juniper@groupstudy.com>
> > >Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:09 PM
> > >Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hope this link helps ....
> > > >
> > > >
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos56/swconfi
> g56-interf
> > > > aces/html/interfaces-ethernet-config34.html#1014780
> > > >
> > > > --harshit
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com [mailto:hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:04 PM
> > > > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; juniper@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have some questions regarding to ethernet aggregated features
> > > > (802.3ad)
> > > > on M-series,
> > > > 1. Do I need to invest a special PIC for implementing
> fast ethernet
> > > > aggregated features on M-series ?
> > > > 2. can Juniper implementation for 802.3ad do load
> balances traffic
> > > > (unicast
> > > > traffic) and redudancy/fail-over (unicast traffic) as well ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------- ------------
> > > > | M5 | | M5 |
> > > > ----------- ------------
> > > > | | FE | | FE
> > > > | | | |
> > > > ------------- FE -------------
> > > > | switch | -------------| switch |
> > > > ------------- -------------
> > > > | FE
> > > > |
> > > > -------------
> > > > | M5 |
> > > > -------------
> > > >
> > > > any helps would be apreciated.
> > > >
> > > > thanks & regards
> > > > hendro
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > > > http://mail2web.com/ .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > > > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > > > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > >http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBPoyMdI3dwu/Ss2PCEQICRQCg57FP3nvd8E/L6qukZyTAr9HjKUsAoP8X
m22rOccfhzPR9Se36/cwgccb
=akvu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

fxp1 is the internal management interface. All M-series routers have
one. This interface should not be configured or modified. It ties the
PFE to the RE.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> Robert Viau
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:46 AM
> To: Harshit Kumar; hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com;
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net;
> Josef Buchsteiner
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
>
>
> Well I've not physically looked at this M40 recently, but
> I noticed remotely
> that it has more than one fxp interface :
>
> Hardware inventory:
> Item Version Part number Serial number
> Description
> Chassis 22138 m40
> <snip>
> SCB REV 02 710-001838 <snip>
> Internet Processor
> II
> <snip>
>
> rviau@router> show interfaces brief | match fxp
> Physical interface: fxp0, Administratively down, Physical
> link is Up
> Physical interface: fxp1, Enabled, Physical link is Up
> Logical interface fxp1.0
>
> rviau@router>
>
> I figured running them to separate hubs and then into a
> management network
> might add some additional redundancy over a single link.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Josef Buchsteiner" <josefb@juniper.net>
> To: "Robert Viau" <rviau@wcom.ca>; "Harshit Kumar"
> <harshit@juniper.net>;
> <hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com>; <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
>
>
> > At 08:23 PM 4/3/2003, Robert Viau wrote:
> > >Is it normal to not be able to do this with fxp interfaces?
> > >
> > >I tried following the instructions at the link below,
> but the fxp
> interfaces
> > >do not appear to support 'fastether-options'. It would
> be nice to use an
> AE
> > >interface for management as it would then provide layer
> 1 failover.
> >
> > what would be the gain if you have one link (fxp0) in an
> ethernet trunk ?
> >
> > Josef
> >
> >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Rob
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Harshit Kumar" <harshit@juniper.net>
> > >To: <hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com>; <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>;
> > ><juniper@groupstudy.com>
> > >Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:09 PM
> > >Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hope this link helps ....
> > > >
> > > >
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos56/swco
> nfig56-interf
> > > > aces/html/interfaces-ethernet-config34.html#1014780
> > > >
> > > > --harshit
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com [mailto:hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:04 PM
> > > > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; juniper@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have some questions regarding to ethernet
> aggregated features
> > > > (802.3ad)
> > > > on M-series,
> > > > 1. Do I need to invest a special PIC for
> implementing fast ethernet
> > > > aggregated features on M-series ?
> > > > 2. can Juniper implementation for 802.3ad do load
> balances traffic
> > > > (unicast
> > > > traffic) and redudancy/fail-over (unicast traffic) as well ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------- ------------
> > > > | M5 | | M5 |
> > > > ----------- ------------
> > > > | | FE | | FE
> > > > | | | |
> > > > ------------- FE -------------
> > > > | switch | -------------| switch |
> > > > ------------- -------------
> > > > | FE
> > > > |
> > > > -------------
> > > > | M5 |
> > > > -------------
> > > >
> > > > any helps would be apreciated.
> > > >
> > > > thanks & regards
> > > > hendro
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> > > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > > > http://mail2web.com/ .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > > > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > > > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > >http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 01:46:22PM -0500, Robert Viau wrote:
> Well I've not physically looked at this M40 recently, but I noticed remotely
> that it has more than one fxp interface :
>
> Hardware inventory:
> Item Version Part number Serial number Description
> Chassis 22138 m40
> <snip>
> SCB REV 02 710-001838 <snip> Internet Processor
> II
> <snip>
>
> rviau@router> show interfaces brief | match fxp
> Physical interface: fxp0, Administratively down, Physical link is Up
> Physical interface: fxp1, Enabled, Physical link is Up
> Logical interface fxp1.0
>
> rviau@router>
>
> I figured running them to separate hubs and then into a management network
> might add some additional redundancy over a single link.

fxp0 is the management interface, fxp1 connects internally and speaks
"tnp" to the rest of the router (the PFE). In fact, I believe the first
gen M40 routing engine's (RE-1.0) fxp1 actually connects to the rest of
the system via an rj45 cable.

--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 01:46:22PM -0500, Robert Viau wrote:
> Well I've not physically looked at this M40 recently, but I noticed remotely
> that it has more than one fxp interface :
>
> Hardware inventory:
> Item Version Part number Serial number Description
> Chassis 22138 m40
> <snip>
> SCB REV 02 710-001838 <snip> Internet Processor
> II
> <snip>
>
> rviau@router> show interfaces brief | match fxp
> Physical interface: fxp0, Administratively down, Physical link is Up
> Physical interface: fxp1, Enabled, Physical link is Up
> Logical interface fxp1.0
>
> rviau@router>
>
> I figured running them to separate hubs and then into a management network
> might add some additional redundancy over a single link.

fxp1 is a internal interface, that is used for communication with the
PFE, FPC's etc. - only fxp0 has a frontplate connection.

/Jesper

On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 01:46:22PM -0500, Robert Viau wrote:
> rviau@router> show interfaces brief | match fxp
> Physical interface: fxp0, Administratively down, Physical link is Up
> Physical interface: fxp1, Enabled, Physical link is Up
> Logical interface fxp1.0

fxp1 is the internal link between the routing engine and the packet
forwarding engine complex. You can't use it for anything else.
Don't touch fxp1, or you're doomed. :-)


Best regards,
Daniel

Just a clarification. You *can* run a routing protocol on the fxp0.
But, the inability to forward traffic from PFE out fxp0, and vice
versa, will likely make you wish that you had not!

The moral is that while I can run with scissors, I would never
recommend it.

;)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> NAIDOO Kesva
> FTLD/IAP
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:02 AM
> To: Paul Goyette; Robert Viau; Harshit Kumar;
> hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com;
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
>
>
> The FXP interface is only for out of band management on
> Juniper routers. You
> cannot run any dynamic routing protocols on these
> interfaces as well. Only
> allowed static routes.
>
> Kesva
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> Paul Goyette
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:30 PM
> To: Robert Viau; Harshit Kumar; hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com;
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
>
>
> It is normal. Aggregating the management Ethernet interface is not
> supported.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> Robert Viau
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:23 AM
> To: Harshit Kumar; hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com;
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
>
>
> Is it normal to not be able to do this with fxp interfaces?
>
> I tried following the instructions at the link below, but
> the fxp interfaces
> do not appear to support 'fastether-options'. It would be
> nice to use an AE
> interface for management as it would then provide layer 1 failover.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harshit Kumar" <harshit@juniper.net>
> To: <hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com>; <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>;
> <juniper@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:09 PM
> Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
>
>
> > Hope this link helps ....
> >
> >
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos56/swco
> nfig56-interf
> > aces/html/interfaces-ethernet-config34.html#1014780
> >
> > --harshit
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com [mailto:hhadiwinoto@hotpop.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:04 PM
> > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; juniper@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I have some questions regarding to ethernet aggregated features
> > (802.3ad)
> > on M-series,
> > 1. Do I need to invest a special PIC for implementing
> fast ethernet
> > aggregated features on M-series ?
> > 2. can Juniper implementation for 802.3ad do load
> balances traffic
> > (unicast
> > traffic) and redudancy/fail-over (unicast traffic) as well ?
> >
> >
> > ----------- ------------
> > | M5 | | M5 |
> > ----------- ------------
> > | | FE | | FE
> > | | | |
> > ------------- FE -------------
> > | switch | -------------| switch |
> > ------------- -------------
> > | FE
> > |
> > -------------
> > | M5 |
> > -------------
> >
> > any helps would be apreciated.
> >
> > thanks & regards
> > hendro
> >
> >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > http://mail2web.com/ .
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Not to mention that the FXP1 interface is not a physical interface in
the since of having a pluggable interface (RJ45) it is only for
communication over the backplane as Jeremy stated.

E. Gary Hauser
Principal Network Support Engineer JTAC
JNCIE #12, CCIE # 4489
Cubicle 1.1.313
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206
www.juniper.net
ghauser@juniper.net



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Wallace [mailto:jwalla@jtac.juniper.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:16 AM
To: Robert Viau
Cc: Josef Buchsteiner; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; Harshit Kumar
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Implementing Ethernet Aggregated Features



On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:46:22 -0500
"Robert Viau" <rviau@wcom.ca> wrote:

RV> Well I've not physically looked at this M40 recently, but I noticed
remotely
RV> that it has more than one fxp interface :
RV>
RV> Hardware inventory:
RV> Item Version Part number Serial number Description
RV> Chassis 22138 m40
RV> <snip>
RV> SCB REV 02 710-001838 <snip> Internet
Processor
RV> II
RV> <snip>
RV>
RV> rviau@router> show interfaces brief | match fxp
RV> Physical interface: fxp0, Administratively down, Physical link is Up
RV> Physical interface: fxp1, Enabled, Physical link is Up
RV> Logical interface fxp1.0
RV>
RV> rviau@router>
RV>
RV> I figured running them to separate hubs and then into a management
network
RV> might add some additional redundancy over a single link.

The fxp1 interface is the link between the RE and the PFE and shouldn't
ever be touched by any configuration attempts. This could mess up
communication between the RE and PFE and cause problems with the routers
functionality.

FXP0 is the out of band management interface and each RE in a router has
one. The M40 only has one out of band management interface, because it
only has one RE.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Jeremy Wallace JTAC Support Engineer
jwalla@jtac.juniper.net Juniper Networks, Inc.
(801) 629-6918 http://support.juniper.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:02:16PM -0500, NAIDOO Kesva FTLD/IAP wrote:
> The FXP interface is only for out of band management on Juniper routers. You
> cannot run any dynamic routing protocols on these interfaces as well. Only
> allowed static routes.

You *can* run dynamic routing protocol(s) on fxp0; moreover, there are
scenarios when this is desirable. What you *cannot* do is to forward packets
between interfaces in forwarding plane and fxp0.

P.S. There is not much difference from rpd's standpoint between static
and dynamic routes.

> Kesva

SY,
--
D.K.