Junos 10.4R2.6 is one of the most stabile version in las few years! [?]
2011/3/16 Bjørn Tore Paulen
> Den 15.03.2011 23:19, skrev Doug Hanks:
>
> I can confirm this as well. Junos Transformation/Ironman started with
>> 10.4R2. There should be a meaningful difference. I know they've increased
Same story, here.. Upgraded to 10.4R3.4 on an MX480 with MX-MPC2-3D,
here's what I've got:
Mar 30 06:30:05 sns480-re0 fpc0 MQCHIP(0) LI Packet length error, pt entry 14
Mar 30 06:30:06 sns480-re0 fpc0 MQCHIP(0) LI Packet length error, pt entry 0
Mar 30 06:30:40 sns480-re0 fpc0 MQCHIP(0) LI Pa
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:19:59PM +0100, bas wrote:
> I tried running 10.4R3 on the MX960, but immediately it reported MQCHIP
> errors.
>
> Mar 23 08:10:17 jun-tc2_re0 fpc4 MQCHIP(0) LI Packet length error, pt entry 9
> Mar 23 08:10:18 jun-tc2_re0 fpc4 MQCHIP(0) LI Packet length error, pt entry
To reply to my own email.
I tried running 10.4R3 on the MX960, but immediately it reported MQCHIP errors.
Mar 23 08:10:17 jun-tc2_re0 fpc4 MQCHIP(0) LI Packet length error, pt entry 9
Mar 23 08:10:18 jun-tc2_re0 fpc4 MQCHIP(0) LI Packet length error, pt entry 0
Mar 23 08:10:19 jun-tc2_re0 fpc1
Has anyone tried running 10.4R3 on a M working as a MPLS-PE? Reason is I am
experiencing an odd issue with an M10i not forwarding CE traffic when I have
two DS-3s installed with equal cost. A/JTAC and my SE have been unable to
figure this out and are pulling a brand C and saying upgrade code and al
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 05:18:47PM +0100, bas wrote:
> >From what I read it was; In the field (Ras, Raphael) we see 10.3r3 as
> the better choice, and people who talk to JTAC say 10.4r2 is the
> better choice.
Oh and btw, I have multiple confirmed reports of YET ANOTHER major
memory leak in mib2d
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 05:18:47PM +0100, bas wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Well, after this thread I still didn't know which version I should
> choose for our 960 with MPC's only.
> >From what I read it was; In the field (Ras, Raphael) we see 10.3r3 as
> the better choice, and people who talk to JTAC say
Hi All,
Well, after this thread I still didn't know which version I should
choose for our 960 with MPC's only.
>From what I read it was; In the field (Ras, Raphael) we see 10.3r3 as
the better choice, and people who talk to JTAC say 10.4r2 is the
better choice.
(Of course it depends on configurat
Steenbergen
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.0 or 10.4?
>
> After upgrading from 10.1 to 10.4R1.9 on a set of our dual-RE2000 MX960's we
> observed that the re1's fxp's were no longer IP-reachable. Console and
> session to "other-route-engine" both work fine, as d
] 10.0 or 10.4?
After upgrading from 10.1 to 10.4R1.9 on a set of our dual-RE2000 MX960's we
observed that the re1's fxp's were no longer IP-reachable. Console and session
to "other-route-engine" both work fine, as does GRES. Same behavior on multiple
dual-RE MXs. JTA
After upgrading from 10.1 to 10.4R1.9 on a set of our dual-RE2000 MX960's we
observed that the re1's fxp's were no longer IP-reachable. Console and session
to "other-route-engine" both work fine, as does GRES. Same behavior on multiple
dual-RE MXs. JTAC has confirmed the group config as OK, but
Are these all 10.4R2 bugs or 10.2?
>
> PR588115 - Changing the forwarding-table export policy twice in a row
> quickly (while the previous change is still being evaluated) will cause
> rpd to coredump.
>
> PR581139 - Similar to above, but causes the FPC to crash too. Give it
> several minutes befo
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:57:56AM -0700, Steve Feldman wrote:
>
> What sorts of bugs did you see in 10.4R2?
We were just testing 10.4 on MX, since EX features are being a lot more
actively developed, thus making major version jumps much more risky. For
example, when we tried moving from 10.1 t
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:24:13PM -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Daniel Roesen [d...@cluenet.de] wrote:
> >> Though I'm looking forward to the day when Virtual Chassis comes to MX
> >> which will allow us to eliminate spanning tree and perhaps sidestep
> >> many of these weird looping issues.
> >
Daniel Roesen [d...@cluenet.de] wrote:
>> Though I'm looking forward to the day when Virtual Chassis comes to MX
>> which will allow us to eliminate spanning tree and perhaps sidestep
>> many of these weird looping issues.
> And then discover the world of tightly coupled systems which of course
> c
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 02:58:50PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> > Such as 10.4R2 not showing transceivers on 16-port 10GE MPC in "show
> > chassis hardware" anymore, but 10.4R1 did? :-)
>
> Works for me, 16-port MPC, 10.4R2.
PR/584705 - perhaps there are situations where it doesn't happen.
> W
This specifically did not work on the SRX. Of course, we didn't notice that
until some time after the upgrade and hosts started falling offline.
On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Steve Feldman wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 2011, at 10:42 PM, Bjørn Tore Paulen wrote:
>
>> Den 15.03.2011 23:19, skrev Dou
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:27:22PM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:13:33PM +0100, magno wrote:
> > I can confirm, 10.4 is the first JUNOS release developed with a new
> > methodology.
> >
> > This would allow Juniper to catch much more bugs before releasing the code
> > th
On Mar 15, 2011, at 10:42 PM, Bjørn Tore Paulen wrote:
Den 15.03.2011 23:19, skrev Doug Hanks:
I can confirm this as well. Junos Transformation/Ironman started
with 10.4R2. There should be a meaningful difference. I know
they've increased the regression testing scripts by nearly 500%.
On Mar 15, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> Our RANCID caught that on on of our lab MXes within less then one hour
> after upgrading the box. Systest didn't - or it wasn't deemed a
> show-stopper for release.
I've found it interesting how many defects can be caught by reviewing the pre
Den 15.03.2011 23:19, skrev Doug Hanks:
I can confirm this as well. Junos Transformation/Ironman started with 10.4R2.
There should be a meaningful difference. I know they've increased the
regression testing scripts by nearly 500%.
Here is one meaningful difference - DHCP relay used to work
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:13:33PM +0100, magno wrote:
> I can confirm, 10.4 is the first JUNOS release developed with a new
> methodology.
>
> This would allow Juniper to catch much more bugs before releasing the code
> than in the past.
Such as 10.4R2 not showing transceivers on 16-port 10GE MP
Hello Nathan,
Using MX since the first code available for this platform, we always had
strange issue with R2 version.
I mean EACH time, and moving to R3, most of the bugs was fixed or non impacting
the production Network.
Our SE also assures us to move to 10.4 R2, but until R3, we will stay wit
-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of magno
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:14 PM
To: Nathan Sipes
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.0 or 10.4?
Hi Nathan and all,
I can confirm, 10.4 is the first JUNOS release developed with a new
methodology.
This would allow Juniper to catch
Hi Nathan and all,
I can confirm, 10.4 is the first JUNOS release developed with a new
methodology.
This would allow Juniper to catch much more bugs before releasing the code
than in the past.
Hope this helps
Magno.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Nathan Sipes wrote:
> Funny My SE a
Funny My SE assures me that they have made significant changes to the way
that the JUNOS code is being developed. Which will result in me finally
after four years getting a stable code image. 10.4 is supposed to fix all my
issues with the R3 release.
Any one taking odds on this?
On Tue, Mar 15,
On 03/15/11 13:57, Steve Feldman wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
>> ...
>> We recently spent a fair bit of time trying to decide between 10.3R3 and
>> 10.4R2 for a lot of MX960 and EX8200 upgrades, and came to the
>> conclusion that 10.4R2 was significantly b
On Mar 15, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
...
We recently spent a fair bit of time trying to decide between 10.3R3
and
10.4R2 for a lot of MX960 and EX8200 upgrades, and came to the
conclusion that 10.4R2 was significantly buggier.
What sorts of bugs did you see in 10.4R2?
lease for the time being...
From: Richard A Steenbergen
To: Chris Kawchuk
Cc: juniper-nsp
Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 11:14:06 AM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.0 or 10.4?
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:43:25PM +1100, Chris Kawchuk wrote:
> Just installed 14 x MX96
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:43:25PM +1100, Chris Kawchuk wrote:
> Just installed 14 x MX960s for a large Aussie Mobile company - The
> release train we've decided on is 10.4R2 for now, due to EEOL support;
> and the fact that 10.0 didn't support a few of the cards we added.
> (16x10GE Trio for ex
Haven't touched 10.4 yet, but 10.0R3.10 has been very solid for us
in what sounds to be a similar environment. Mostly L2VPNs here, with
some VPLS (BGP and LDP) and VRF thrown in on MXs (240/480) and T640s
(full table on all of them, in a VRF), 2 of which are acting as RRs in
a limited capacity.
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Bjørn Tore wrote:
> Den 15.03.2011 09:43, skrev Chris Kawchuk:
>>
>> I'd like to standardize all the other devices in my network to 10.4; once
>> the "suggest JTAC releases" goes past 10.2R3 for things like SRX platforms.
>
> Second that. We tried 10.4R2.7 on
Den 15.03.2011 09:43, skrev Chris Kawchuk:
Just installed 14 x MX960s for a large Aussie Mobile company - The release
train we've decided on is 10.4R2 for now, due to EEOL support; and the fact
that 10.0 didn't support a few of the cards we added. (16x10GE Trio for example
didn't come till 10.
Just installed 14 x MX960s for a large Aussie Mobile company - The release
train we've decided on is 10.4R2 for now, due to EEOL support; and the fact
that 10.0 didn't support a few of the cards we added. (16x10GE Trio for example
didn't come till 10.2).
I have also hear that 10.4 also included
I know the subject of JunOS versions has been beaten to death, but I've
never seen this specific question asked or answered. I'm trying to decide
between 10.0 or 10.4 for a network of MX, M (10i, 120 and 40e) and J series
routers. I'd like to choose a train with extended support. I'm trying to
d
35 matches
Mail list logo
