Copyright © 2010, Juniper Networks, Inc.
Known Behavior
29
Release 11.1.1
z
Typically, when configuring packet mirroring, you configure a static route to reach the
analyzer device through the analyzer port. If the analyzer port is an IP-over-Ethernet
interface, you must also configure a static Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) entry
to reach the analyzer device. However, because only a single static ARP entry can be
installed for a given address at any given time, when you are using equal-cost
multipath (ECMP) links to connect to the analyzer device, the static ARP
configuration does not provide failover if the link being selected fails or is
disconnected. Therefore, to provide continued connectivity if the link fails when using
ECMP, enable the ip proxy-arp unrestricted command on the next-hop router for
each ECMP interface. As a result, when the link fails, the router sends an ARP request
to identify the MAC address of the analyzer device and gets a response over the new
link.
Policy Management
z
The ES2 10G LM does not support the
deprecated next-hop
command.
z
You cannot configure classifier lists that reference multiple fields for a VLAN policy
list on the ES2 10G Uplink LM or the ES2 10G LM, with the exception of traffic-class
and color. The system incorrectly classifies VLAN policies that classify using multiple
fields. For example, an invalid policy list that references multiple fields uses both
color and user-packet-class, or one classifier list using color and another using
user-packet-class.
z
In rare cases, some policy configurations that use CAM hardware classifiers from
releases earlier than Release 7.1.0 can fail because they exceed the total hardware
classifier entry size of 128 bits that was introduced in Release 7.1.0. For more
information and examples of previous configurations, see
JunosE Policy Management
Configuration Guide, Chapter 8, Policy Resources
.
z
Multiple Forwarding Solution Rules for a Single Classifier List in a Policy
Before Release 5.2.0, it was possible to configure a policy with multiple rules that
specified forwarding solutions where all of these rules were associated with a single
classifier list. This typically was a configuration error, but the CLI accepted it.
Beginning with Release 5.2.0, the CLI no longer accepts this configuration.
−
Multiple forwarding rules behavior for releases numbered lower than Release
5.2.0:
>
If multiple forward or filter rules were configured to reference the same
classifier list in a single policy, then all rules except the first rule configured
were marked as eclipsed in the
show policy
command display.
Next-interface and next-hop rules were treated in the same manner. The
eclipsed rules were not applied.
>
If a policy were configured with one rule from the [forward, filter] pair and
one rule from the [next-hop, next-interface] pair, and if both rules
referenced the same classifier list, then no visible eclipsed marking occurred.
However, these two rules were mutually exclusive, and only one of them
defined the forwarding behavior. The rule action that was applied was in the
order (from highest to lowest preference): next interface, filter, next hop,
forward. The applied rule was the rule whose behavior was seen by
forwarded packets.
