Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
Hello Gerhard, On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Prochaska Gerhard wrote: > I was at the Juniper LAB in Amsterdam last week for a POC LAB on MPC2 (2 MIC > with 4x10G) and 16x10G MPC on Junos > 10.2p2. I asked the same question and wanted to know why we do the POC LAB on > 10.2 and not the already released 10.3. > From what i understood there are no relevant bugfixes when it comes to MPC > Cards In R 10.3. Thanks for that information. >From the release notes I see no mention of trio related bugs fixed. I have not yet heard from the Juniper SE what he advises. > In the LAB we did some IPV4 and IPV6 OSPF, OSPF V3 and BGP Scalability Tests > and throughput vs. Packetsize Test > on the MPC2 (2 MIC with 4x10G) and 16x10G MPC. Especially the DPC to MPC > Interworking is important for us for we see > the new cards as high density cards which might help us in our ISP nodes > where slots are nearly full. We have not yet started testing, but are planning to use - v4 and v6 OSPF and BGP - route reflector - MPC only linecards, we have no DPC's All in all pretty basic, feature wise.. We did have our first MPC crash today. (on 10.3) Possibly related to enabling BGP. A second MPC is giving strange errors too. "fpc4 MQCHIP(3) FI Cell underflow at the state stage" I'll keep you updated on our findings. Bas ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
Hi Bas ! I was at the Juniper LAB in Amsterdam last week for a POC LAB on MPC2 (2 MIC with 4x10G) and 16x10G MPC on Junos 10.2p2. I asked the same question and wanted to know why we do the POC LAB on 10.2 and not the already released 10.3. From what i understood there are no relevant bugfixes when it comes to MPC Cards In R 10.3. In the LAB we did some IPV4 and IPV6 OSPF, OSPF V3 and BGP Scalability Tests and throughput vs. Packetsize Test on the MPC2 (2 MIC with 4x10G) and 16x10G MPC. Especially the DPC to MPC Interworking is important for us for we see the new cards as high density cards which might help us in our ISP nodes where slots are nearly full. Would be interesting what you are planning to test. Greetings gerhard -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] Im Auftrag von Derick Winkworth Gesendet: Montag, 30. August 2010 17:02 An: bas; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Betreff: Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only? In fact, yes! 10.3 is primarily a JUNOS cleanup effort. There should be close to nothing in the release notes compared to previous releases. I believe they intend to do this with another release in the near future. Like 10.5? I think they are really, really wanting to have another golden release similar to 8.5. Perhaps Richard's stalled route issue will be cleared? From: bas To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 5:18:31 AM Subject: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only? Hi All, Has anyone tried 10.3 on an MX with MPC's ? I guess not too many have MPC cards to test with, but I'd thought I'd ask. We will be testing both 10.2 and 10.3 over the next couple of weeks. The 10.3 release notes mention suspiciously little MX/MPC/TRIO stuff... Maybe there has been a lot of fixing Juniper is not open about? Has any of you heard from their SE that 10.3 would be better for MPC/TRIO than 10.2? Thanks, Bas ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
Chris Evans skrev: I don't have a PR yet, JTAC is working on it.. My test topology was simple.. IRB in, IRB out, two different bridge domains.. If you enable IGMP-snooping, the 'show' commands will appear as everything is working correctly, however it will not forward multicast traffic. Looking on the PFE syslog there are errors stating that it cannot create the entry due to unknown table indexes. So while it might work with VPLS, basic ethernet switching is broken. The workaround currently is to disable igmp-snooping, which causes multicast to be flooded across all ports. I'm not even going to mention that IGMP-Snooping isn't support on trunk interfaces which blows my mind. In 10.3 multicast doesn't function at all with IRB interfaces.. We decided to skip IRB on 10.0 all together due to this. Too bad.. /BT ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
On another note.. Has anyone tested the inline services of the Trio chipset? Meaning GRE, IP-IP, JFlow, etc.. ?? On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Derick Winkworth wrote: > You know, just as this thread popped up on this list, we were dealing with > a > multicast related issue... On an MX if you statically map a unicast IP > address > to a multicast mac address, you have to specify a single l2 interface to > forward > that traffic out of. It essentially defeats the whole purpose of creating > the > mapping in the first place. > > So I thought, what if we connect to ports on the same box together? This > worked. Essentially you create a logical interface on one end of the cable > and > you move your layer 3 config to it for that particular VLAN, then the other > end > of the cable is just a trunk port. > > > This might resolve your issue. > > > > > > From: Chris Evans > To: Derick Winkworth > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 11:45:58 AM > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only? > > > Agreed if they offering the mx as an Ethernet switch this should be > supported. Nag your account team. I had them put in an enhancement > request > but who knows if they are listening. > > > "Its not supported" is the wrong phrase. "Its broken" is more > appropriate. > >Whatever design choices that were made in the past that led to this, as > you > >said, "mind-blowing" caveat, Juniper needs to go backwards and fix it. > > > > On Tue Aug 31st, 2010 8:01 AM CDT Chris Evans wrote: > > > >>Try configuring an irb, igmp, igmp-snooping and a trunk port on 10.x > code. > >>It will tell you its not supported. It's never been supported per JTAC. > >>Also as per jtacs comment they put that statement in newer code as they > >>didn't know it wasnt supported before. I asked jtac to update the > >>documentation. > >> > Is this in documentation somewhere? I just did a quick pass through > the > >>IGMP > >>> snooping docs and I did not see it stated anywhere in there... maybe I > >>missed > >>> it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Derick Winkworth > >>> To: Chris Evans ; Gavin Tweedie < > g...@narx.net> > >>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > >>> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 7:13:37 AM > >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only? > >>> > >>> ### > >>> I'm not even going to mention that > >>> > >>> IGMP-Snooping isn't support on trunk interfaces which blows my mind. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> wow! > >>> ___ > >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > >>> ___ > >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
Crazy workaround but I didn't spend 500k on a box to do a hack job that a 3k box does perfectly :) > You know, just as this thread popped up on this list, we were dealing with a > multicast related issue... On an MX if you statically map a unicast IP address > to a multicast mac address, you have to specify a single l2 interface to forward > that traffic out of. It essentially defeats the whole purpose of creating the > mapping in the first place. > > So I thought, what if we connect to ports on the same box together? This > worked. Essentially you create a logical interface on one end of the cable and > you move your layer 3 config to it for that particular VLAN, then the other end > of the cable is just a trunk port. > > > This might resolve your issue. > > > > > > From: Chris Evans > To: Derick Winkworth > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 11:45:58 AM > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only? > > > Agreed if they offering the mx as an Ethernet switch this should be > supported. Nag your account team. I had them put in an enhancement request > but who knows if they are listening. > >> "Its not supported" is the wrong phrase. "Its broken" is more appropriate. >>Whatever design choices that were made in the past that led to this, as you >>said, "mind-blowing" caveat, Juniper needs to go backwards and fix it. >> >> On Tue Aug 31st, 2010 8:01 AM CDT Chris Evans wrote: >> >>>Try configuring an irb, igmp, igmp-snooping and a trunk port on 10.x code. >>>It will tell you its not supported. It's never been supported per JTAC. >>>Also as per jtacs comment they put that statement in newer code as they >>>didn't know it wasnt supported before. I asked jtac to update the >>>documentation. >>> > Is this in documentation somewhere? I just did a quick pass through the >>>IGMP >>>> snooping docs and I did not see it stated anywhere in there... maybe I >>>missed >>>> it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Derick Winkworth >>>> To: Chris Evans ; Gavin Tweedie >>>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>>> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 7:13:37 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only? >>>> >>>> ### >>>> I'm not even going to mention that >>>> >>>> IGMP-Snooping isn't support on trunk interfaces which blows my mind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> wow! >>>> ___ >>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >>>> ___ >>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
You know, just as this thread popped up on this list, we were dealing with a multicast related issue... On an MX if you statically map a unicast IP address to a multicast mac address, you have to specify a single l2 interface to forward that traffic out of. It essentially defeats the whole purpose of creating the mapping in the first place. So I thought, what if we connect to ports on the same box together? This worked. Essentially you create a logical interface on one end of the cable and you move your layer 3 config to it for that particular VLAN, then the other end of the cable is just a trunk port. This might resolve your issue. From: Chris Evans To: Derick Winkworth Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 11:45:58 AM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only? Agreed if they offering the mx as an Ethernet switch this should be supported. Nag your account team. I had them put in an enhancement request but who knows if they are listening. > "Its not supported" is the wrong phrase. "Its broken" is more appropriate. >Whatever design choices that were made in the past that led to this, as you >said, "mind-blowing" caveat, Juniper needs to go backwards and fix it. > > On Tue Aug 31st, 2010 8:01 AM CDT Chris Evans wrote: > >>Try configuring an irb, igmp, igmp-snooping and a trunk port on 10.x code. >>It will tell you its not supported. It's never been supported per JTAC. >>Also as per jtacs comment they put that statement in newer code as they >>didn't know it wasnt supported before. I asked jtac to update the >>documentation. >> > Is this in documentation somewhere? I just did a quick pass through the >>IGMP >>> snooping docs and I did not see it stated anywhere in there... maybe I >>missed >>> it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________ >>> From: Derick Winkworth >>> To: Chris Evans ; Gavin Tweedie >>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 7:13:37 AM >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only? >>> >>> ### >>> I'm not even going to mention that >>> >>> IGMP-Snooping isn't support on trunk interfaces which blows my mind. >>> >>> >>> >>> wow! >>> ___ >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >>> ___ >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
Agreed if they offering the mx as an Ethernet switch this should be supported. Nag your account team. I had them put in an enhancement request but who knows if they are listening. > "Its not supported" is the wrong phrase. "Its broken" is more appropriate. Whatever design choices that were made in the past that led to this, as you said, "mind-blowing" caveat, Juniper needs to go backwards and fix it. > > On Tue Aug 31st, 2010 8:01 AM CDT Chris Evans wrote: > >>Try configuring an irb, igmp, igmp-snooping and a trunk port on 10.x code. >>It will tell you its not supported. It's never been supported per JTAC. >>Also as per jtacs comment they put that statement in newer code as they >>didn't know it wasnt supported before. I asked jtac to update the >>documentation. >> > Is this in documentation somewhere? I just did a quick pass through the >>IGMP >>> snooping docs and I did not see it stated anywhere in there... maybe I >>missed >>> it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________ >>> From: Derick Winkworth >>> To: Chris Evans ; Gavin Tweedie >>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 7:13:37 AM >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only? >>> >>> ### >>> I'm not even going to mention that >>> >>> IGMP-Snooping isn't support on trunk interfaces which blows my mind. >>> >>> >>> >>> wow! >>> ___ >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >>> ___ >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
"Its not supported" is the wrong phrase. "Its broken" is more appropriate. Whatever design choices that were made in the past that led to this, as you said, "mind-blowing" caveat, Juniper needs to go backwards and fix it. On Tue Aug 31st, 2010 8:01 AM CDT Chris Evans wrote: >Try configuring an irb, igmp, igmp-snooping and a trunk port on 10.x code. >It will tell you its not supported. It's never been supported per JTAC. >Also as per jtacs comment they put that statement in newer code as they >didn't know it wasnt supported before. I asked jtac to update the >documentation. > > Is this in documentation somewhere? I just did a quick pass through the >IGMP >> snooping docs and I did not see it stated anywhere in there... maybe I >missed >> it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Derick Winkworth >> To: Chris Evans ; Gavin Tweedie >> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 7:13:37 AM >> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only? >> >> ### >> I'm not even going to mention that >> >> IGMP-Snooping isn't support on trunk interfaces which blows my mind. >> >> >> >> wow! >> ___ >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> ___ >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
Try configuring an irb, igmp, igmp-snooping and a trunk port on 10.x code. It will tell you its not supported. It's never been supported per JTAC. Also as per jtacs comment they put that statement in newer code as they didn't know it wasnt supported before. I asked jtac to update the documentation. > Is this in documentation somewhere? I just did a quick pass through the IGMP > snooping docs and I did not see it stated anywhere in there... maybe I missed > it. > > > > > > > From: Derick Winkworth > To: Chris Evans ; Gavin Tweedie > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 7:13:37 AM > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only? > > ### > I'm not even going to mention that > > IGMP-Snooping isn't support on trunk interfaces which blows my mind. > > > > wow! > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
Is this in documentation somewhere? I just did a quick pass through the IGMP snooping docs and I did not see it stated anywhere in there... maybe I missed it. From: Derick Winkworth To: Chris Evans ; Gavin Tweedie Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 7:13:37 AM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only? ### I'm not even going to mention that IGMP-Snooping isn't support on trunk interfaces which blows my mind. wow! ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
### I'm not even going to mention that IGMP-Snooping isn't support on trunk interfaces which blows my mind. wow! ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
I don't have a PR yet, JTAC is working on it.. My test topology was simple.. IRB in, IRB out, two different bridge domains.. If you enable IGMP-snooping, the 'show' commands will appear as everything is working correctly, however it will not forward multicast traffic. Looking on the PFE syslog there are errors stating that it cannot create the entry due to unknown table indexes. So while it might work with VPLS, basic ethernet switching is broken. The workaround currently is to disable igmp-snooping, which causes multicast to be flooded across all ports. I'm not even going to mention that IGMP-Snooping isn't support on trunk interfaces which blows my mind. In 10.3 multicast doesn't function at all with IRB interfaces.. I have a conference call with JTAC tomorrow On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Gavin Tweedie wrote: > On 31/08/2010 9:08 AM, Chris Evans wrote: > >> The latest junos bug I've found is that with the mx platform igmp snooping >> doesn't work at all in 10.0 and other train releases. In 10.3 all mulicast >> is broken when using irb interfaces. Seriously is no one testing? >> > > We have IGMP snooping working in a P2MP VPLS instance on many MXs running > 10.0R3 (and earlier releases). Sounds a bit more corner-case than not > working at all - do you have some more details or a PR for it? > > Gavin > > > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
On 31/08/2010 9:08 AM, Chris Evans wrote: The latest junos bug I've found is that with the mx platform igmp snooping doesn't work at all in 10.0 and other train releases. In 10.3 all mulicast is broken when using irb interfaces. Seriously is no one testing? We have IGMP snooping working in a P2MP VPLS instance on many MXs running 10.0R3 (and earlier releases). Sounds a bit more corner-case than not working at all - do you have some more details or a PR for it? Gavin ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
Agreed. To me, it seems to me that the overall quality of JunOS has slipped since 10.x, however recovering from most problems on JunOS is at least possible. In classic IOS, even a small bug or memory leak can quickly turn into a major catastrophe (no memory management/supervision and a single binary image). On Juniper platforms, one can usually kill and restart the affected daemon while the PFEs still chug along. I hope Juniper takes some time to get their release quality back up to the par we've come to expect from them over the years. Cheers, Jof On Aug 30, 2010 6:21 PM, "Chris Evans" wrote: I have real concerns with juniper. We are primarily a Cisco shop and are using juniper devices here and there. I have to honestly say, anymore Cisco code is way more stable than Junos. I'm always finding major bugs in junos, yet any Cisco bugs we are finding are usually cornercase ones. The latest junos bug I've found is that with the mx platform igmp snooping doesn't work at all in 10.0 and other train releases. In 10.3 all mulicast is broken when using irb interfaces. Seriously is no one testing? I hope they get their act together soon On Aug 30, 2010 7:57 PM, "Richard A Steenbergen" wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 a... > > In fact, yes! 10.3 is primarily... > The story I've heard is that they put the brakes on almost all new > feature development for 10.3 ... > > similar to 8.5. Perhap... > Don't get your hopes up, I don't think there has been any significant > progress made on the route... > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-...@puck.nether.net... > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-...@puck.nether.n... ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Chris Evans wrote: > I have real concerns with juniper. We are primarily a Cisco shop and are > using juniper devices here and there. I have to honestly say, anymore > Cisco > code is way more stable than Junos. I'm always finding major bugs in junos, > yet any Cisco bugs we are finding are usually cornercase ones. > > The latest junos bug I've found is that with the mx platform igmp snooping > doesn't work at all in 10.0 and other train releases. In 10.3 all mulicast > is broken when using irb interfaces. Seriously is no one testing? > > I hope they get their act together soon > To play safe, we are still using 9.3R4.4 on all M & MX (also on packet mode J), and 10.0S6.1 on EX4200/3200 in production area, cause we don't need new features for now, plus looks like these codes run well in our simple environment. (knock the wood...) No sure how long we can keep it, but things are too scary to 1. upgeade to 10.x for M&MX 2. upgrade (or I should say "downgrade") to flow-mode for J. Regards, M~ ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
I have real concerns with juniper. We are primarily a Cisco shop and are using juniper devices here and there. I have to honestly say, anymore Cisco code is way more stable than Junos. I'm always finding major bugs in junos, yet any Cisco bugs we are finding are usually cornercase ones. The latest junos bug I've found is that with the mx platform igmp snooping doesn't work at all in 10.0 and other train releases. In 10.3 all mulicast is broken when using irb interfaces. Seriously is no one testing? I hope they get their act together soon On Aug 30, 2010 7:57 PM, "Richard A Steenbergen" wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 08:01:50AM -0700, Derick Winkworth wrote: > > In fact, yes! 10.3 is primarily... > The story I've heard is that they put the brakes on almost all new > feature development for 10.3 and I think 10.4, to give them a chance to > get their systest act together. I'm not sure if halting feature > development (and switching to a goofy quarterly date-based release > system :P) is really the right way to fix things, but at least they're > trying to do something to address the very serious issue of the > disasterously buggy code they've been churning out lately, so at least > that's something. :) > > > > I think they are really, really wanting to have another golden release > > similar to 8.5. Perhap... > Don't get your hopes up, I don't think there has been any significant > progress made on the route stall issue. As far as I can tell it appears > to be a long-standing issue in rpd that Juniper just doesn't have the > ability or will to fix (at least not at the rate they're losing rpd > developers). > > The root of the issue seems to be that exchanging large numbers of > routes over BGP will starve something within rpd, to the point that new > routes cannot be installed to the FIB, and in some cases the box won't > even start advertising any routes outbound, while it is still receiving > new BGP routes. For MX's our best solution was to roll out a layer of > dedicated route reflector boxes to replace our current IBGP core mesh, > thus hiding most of the inactive paths from the real routers (e.g. > bringing it down from 3-4 million paths over ~30 sessions to 330k * 2 > paths from 2 sessions). EX is still pretty bad though, you can stall it > for 20 minutes with less than a million paths, which is a real problem > when you have a customer aggregation router which won't advertise > customer prefixes for 20 minutes following rpd restart. > > I'm really wondering how things are coming with SMP-capable JUNOS. I > tried booting a jinstall64 olive, and while the image isindeed using an > amd64 kernel it STILL doesn't have SMP enabled. Considering they briefly > slipped in a line about upcoming Core2 Duo/Quad RE's into some recent > release notes, I really hope they're gonna have this working soon. :) > > -- > Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) > > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-...@puck.nether.net... > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 08:01:50AM -0700, Derick Winkworth wrote: > In fact, yes! 10.3 is primarily a JUNOS cleanup effort. There should > be close to nothing in the release notes compared to previous > releases. > > I believe they intend to do this with another release in the near > future. Like 10.5? The story I've heard is that they put the brakes on almost all new feature development for 10.3 and I think 10.4, to give them a chance to get their systest act together. I'm not sure if halting feature development (and switching to a goofy quarterly date-based release system :P) is really the right way to fix things, but at least they're trying to do something to address the very serious issue of the disasterously buggy code they've been churning out lately, so at least that's something. :) > I think they are really, really wanting to have another golden release > similar to 8.5. Perhaps Richard's stalled route issue will be > cleared? Don't get your hopes up, I don't think there has been any significant progress made on the route stall issue. As far as I can tell it appears to be a long-standing issue in rpd that Juniper just doesn't have the ability or will to fix (at least not at the rate they're losing rpd developers). The root of the issue seems to be that exchanging large numbers of routes over BGP will starve something within rpd, to the point that new routes cannot be installed to the FIB, and in some cases the box won't even start advertising any routes outbound, while it is still receiving new BGP routes. For MX's our best solution was to roll out a layer of dedicated route reflector boxes to replace our current IBGP core mesh, thus hiding most of the inactive paths from the real routers (e.g. bringing it down from 3-4 million paths over ~30 sessions to 330k * 2 paths from 2 sessions). EX is still pretty bad though, you can stall it for 20 minutes with less than a million paths, which is a real problem when you have a customer aggregation router which won't advertise customer prefixes for 20 minutes following rpd restart. I'm really wondering how things are coming with SMP-capable JUNOS. I tried booting a jinstall64 olive, and while the image isindeed using an amd64 kernel it STILL doesn't have SMP enabled. Considering they briefly slipped in a line about upcoming Core2 Duo/Quad RE's into some recent release notes, I really hope they're gonna have this working soon. :) -- Richard A Steenbergenhttp://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
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
Hi, On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Derick Winkworth wrote: > In fact, yes! 10.3 is primarily a JUNOS cleanup effort. There should be > close to nothing in the release notes compared to previous releases. Well I did a quick count. in the 10.2 release notes there are 128 outstanding PR numbers in the 10.3 release notes there are 117 outstanding PR numbers Something else that is strange; The entire paragraph "Resolved Issues in JUNOS Release 10.3 for M Series, MX Series, and T Series Routers" is not included in the release notes. Bas ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
In fact, yes! 10.3 is primarily a JUNOS cleanup effort. There should be close to nothing in the release notes compared to previous releases. I believe they intend to do this with another release in the near future. Like 10.5? I think they are really, really wanting to have another golden release similar to 8.5. Perhaps Richard's stalled route issue will be cleared? From: bas To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 5:18:31 AM Subject: [j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only? Hi All, Has anyone tried 10.3 on an MX with MPC's ? I guess not too many have MPC cards to test with, but I'd thought I'd ask. We will be testing both 10.2 and 10.3 over the next couple of weeks. The 10.3 release notes mention suspiciously little MX/MPC/TRIO stuff... Maybe there has been a lot of fixing Juniper is not open about? Has any of you heard from their SE that 10.3 would be better for MPC/TRIO than 10.2? Thanks, Bas ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] 10.3 on MX960 with MPC only?
Hi All, Has anyone tried 10.3 on an MX with MPC's ? I guess not too many have MPC cards to test with, but I'd thought I'd ask. We will be testing both 10.2 and 10.3 over the next couple of weeks. The 10.3 release notes mention suspiciously little MX/MPC/TRIO stuff... Maybe there has been a lot of fixing Juniper is not open about? Has any of you heard from their SE that 10.3 would be better for MPC/TRIO than 10.2? Thanks, Bas ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
