Ask your sales team for the ability to vote for product enhancements that
other customers have submitted. This might help the priority of some of the
lower incremental revenue feature requests.
Regards,
Mike Brown
-----Original Message-----
From: Avi Freedman [mailto:freedman@freedman.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:51 PM
To: ronjeremy@raemail.com
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: Ping VRRP virtual IP address
Ideally, yes.
Juniper says it would be against RFC.
Some of us disagree; to help the cause, if other people who spend $ with
Juniper could ask their Juniper reps for that "feature" to be implemented,
it'd be appreciated...
Thanks,
Avi
>
> Can I ping the virtual IP address of a juniper running VRRP?
>
From jared@puck.nethÀóÅ;et
Received: (from jared@localhost)
by puck.nether.net (8.11.1/8.9.3) id f34EutD23392
for junipeÀóÅ;p@localhost1/8.9.3) idI
(envelope-from jared)
Resent-Message-Id: <200104041456.f34EutD23392@puck.ÀóÅ;er
REceived: (from slist@localhost)
by puck.nether.net (8.11.1/8.9.3) id f349Kms14086;
Wed, 4 Apr 2001 05:20:48 -0400ÀóÅ;nv
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 05:20:48 -0400
X-From_: raszuk@sj-core.cisco.com WeÀóÅ;r
Received: from someone claiming to be
sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com [171.71.163.10])ÀóÅ; p
for <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 05:20:44 -040ÀóÅ;en
Received-Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 05:20:44 -0400
Received: from sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (ÀóÅ;sg
by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA10778;
Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:16:26ÀóÅ;00
Received: from cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f349GGu147…éÅ; W
Old-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 02:14:44 -0700
FrÀóÅ;Ro
Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com
Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/
XÀóÅ;le
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kireeti Ko
CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net, lpatterson@equinix.com, mpls-ops@mplsr
Subject: Re: JuÀóÅ;r
References: <200104031608.JAA11680@kummer.juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/pÀóÅ;;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Envelope-To: juniper-nsp
Resent-FrÀóÅ;ja
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:56:55 -0400
Resent-To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Hi Kireeti,
> thÀóÅ;ou
> let your sales rep know why you think this is useful.
The onÀóÅ;se
bits to the tailend as otherwise this info is lost at PHP and ÀóÅ; h
no wAy of knowing how to schedule the packets (of course assuming that
QoS in IP header is different then the one in EXÀóÅ;el
we call QoS transparency :).
R.
> Kireeti Kompella wrote:
>
> > I am going to try and attempt to claÀóÅ; t
>
> Well, if I may take a shot: Juniper used to support only explicit
> null (label of 0) at the egress. ToÀóÅ;rc
> problems with ciscos (this was over a year ago), we changed our
> behaviour to signal label 3 at egÀóÅ; a
> didn't add a knob, however, to choose the behaviour.
>
> If you would like to see label 0 signalÀóÅ;at
> that you contact your sales rep and put in a request for this. Do
> let your sales rep know why ÀóÅ;th
>
> Kireeti.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:41 EDT