On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 01:18:25PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote: > > I can think of one reason this would be of value. In your example > (removed) both interfaces were enabled. IMHO, this should fail a > commit/commit-check. If one interface is down and the other is up, > this is an acceptable configuration on Cisco.
Right, you can configure whatever you want on Juniper as long as the config is inactive. The problem is that it lets you configure the same IP on two live interfaces, which invariably breaks one or both of them. > I do agree this appears to be a problem, if they implemented this as > an enhancement (ie: reason for the change) they should be able to > provide you the ER/Feature documentation, similar to the way cisco can > provide an EDCS document that references why the decision was made. > You can still disagree, but it doesn't quite appear to be as big of a > problem as you suggest. Wait until you bring down a production interface because you accidentally configured the same IP twice and nothing prevented it, then tell me it isn't a problem. There is no legitimate reason for this to be allowed, and at some point they changed what was a correct and working behavior into one with no safety net. I for one am tired of outages caused by this issue, and being told that it isn't actually a problem. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp