All configuration is done via Juniper Mist.
In my Juniper EX4300-MP48 I created an interface IRB.30 with address 192.168.31.200
irb {
unit 30 {
description it;
family inet {
address 192.169.31.200/24;
}
}
}
and I added VLAN 30:
it {
vlan-id 30;
l3-interface irb.30;
}
but I cannot ping this address, not even from the switch itself.
I ping with ping 192.168.31.200
and get this result:
PING 192.168.31.200 (192.168.31.200): 56 data bytes
^C
--- 192.168.31.200 ping statistics ---
70 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
So it seems that the VLAN is not working correctly or that the interface is down, so I use show vlans
and get:
default-switch it 30
ge-0/0/0.0*
ge-0/0/10.0
ge-0/0/11.0
ge-0/0/12.0
ge-0/0/13.0
ge-0/0/14.0
ge-0/0/15.0
ge-0/0/4.0
ge-0/0/5.0
ge-0/0/6.0
ge-0/0/7.0
ge-0/0/8.0
ge-0/0/9.0
Here you can also see that the interface ge-0/0/0*
has the *
because that interface is part of a trunk. This is the Uplink interface
So I run the command show interfaces irb.30 terse
and get:
Interface Admin Link Proto Local Remote
irb.30 up up inet 192.169.31.200/24
which clearly states that the interface is up, so I conclude that the issue is with the actual physical interface and therefore run the command show interfaces ge-0/0/0 terse
which gives me the same result:
Interface Admin Link Proto Local Remote
ge-0/0/0 up up
ge-0/0/0.0 up up eth-switch
So guys and gals... Please help an actual IT idiot :) I don't know where to go next or if I missed something in the initial setup.
EDIT 1
It was suggested i ping the arp cache, so I ran the command show arp
which gives me
MAC Address Address Name Interface Flags
94:ff:3c:6a:6d:93 192.168.31.1 192.168.31.1 vme.0 none
04:5c:6c:44:87:31 192.168.31.13 192.168.31.13 vme.0 none
b8:c2:53:e7:3c:2d 192.168.31.14 192.168.31.14 vme.0 none
98:f2:b3:45:d1:00 192.168.31.20 192.168.31.20 vme.0 none
00:15:65:c5:7b:93 192.168.31.106 192.168.31.106 vme.0 none
10:c3:7b:6e:97:bc 192.168.31.122 192.168.31.122 vme.0 none
Total entries: 6
I pinged all the various addresses and surely they responded, but I think it might be an issue that the .200 address is not present. But I'll have to figure that out somehow.