Routing

Thanks Farid, I will give a try with IP, I followed the instruction below that says next-hop has to be interface . I will let you know. https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/cos/topics/concept/cos-configuring-cos-based-forwarding.html ...

Hi I have a router MX204, found "Dropped traffic statistics due to STP State" in a interface, but stp is disable at global level at both side, the interface diagnostics optics is normal, what cause dropped traffic? show interfaces et-0/0/2 ...

Hi all, We have 2 MX10003 with MPiBGP between them (ospf, ldp, bfd, ibgp) . JunOS version : Junos: 23.4R1.9 We have some VRFs in the MXs and we have a static route +bfd to Net1 in MX1 vrf1. The static routes have bfd and it is UP/Active ...

Hi, Does anyone already faced one issue related to SRX300 sending malformed BGP OPEN messages, without marker, type and so on. We only see the following pattern in the TCP payload: 12 03 AB CD. These packets cause the remote peer to drop the connection ...

Hi, I would suggest to try 2 things Try to use IP address instead of interface as next-hop in COS forwarding policy. In policy statement itself, I think accept action is unnecessary for T1 term, just COS next-hop-map should be enough. ------------------------------ ...

In case next hop of the received prefix from eBGP neighbor is not reachable, it will not be accepted. Even if you apply import policy to fix the next hop, the prefix needs to first be ACCEPTED, after which its next can be modified. Classic example is ...

Hi Marc, I know it is old thread but it contains a lot of valuable info. By default, Junos OS does not maintain the route for indirect next hop to forwarding next-hop binding on the Packet Forwarding Engine forwarding table... .so that is why ...