On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 04:24:31PM -0800, Derick Winkworth wrote:
> We tried 10.0S10 and S11, but there is a bug that drives CPU to 100%
> indefinitely if you have a large config (something to do with socket
> used to pass config info to various processes).
As a note for all the people asking ab
On Jan 28, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 1/28/11 2:35 PM, Keith wrote:
>> On 1/28/2011 2:16 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Keith wrote:
Currently the box is running 10.2R1.8. It has a MIC-3D 20 port card,
MPC1, and RE-S-
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 07:10:27PM -0500, Jonathan Towne wrote:
>
> I actually find myself in the same situation as the OP, as I just
> powered up and started doing some initial configuration, testing, and
> most of all: some learning on our new MX480 (with MX-MPC2-3D), it
> seems to have shipp
From: Richard A Steenbergen
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: Juniper-Nsp
Sent: Fri, January 28, 2011 5:41:13 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX480 JunOS version.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 06:15:08PM -0500, Paul Stewart wrote:
> We're still running 10.0R3.10 on MX platform (MX480) and with an
> uptime of abou
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 04:16:49PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen scribbled:
# On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Keith wrote:
# >
# > Currently the box is running 10.2R1.8. It has a MIC-3D 20 port card,
# > MPC1, and RE-S-2000.
#
# Juniper just put out a tech bulletin this morning admittin
On 1/28/11 2:35 PM, Keith wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 2:16 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Keith wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently the box is running 10.2R1.8. It has a MIC-3D 20 port card,
>>> MPC1, and RE-S-2000.
>>
>> Juniper just put out a tech bulletin this morni
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 06:15:08PM -0500, Paul Stewart wrote:
> We're still running 10.0R3.10 on MX platform (MX480) and with an
> uptime of about 261 days and "no obvious issues" (notice I choose my
> words carefully there) is there a reason to upgrade or just sit back
> at this point? I reali
On Behalf Of Richard A
> Steenbergen
> Sent: January-28-11 5:17 PM
> To: Keith
> Cc: Juniper-Nsp
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX480 JunOS version.
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Keith wrote:
> >
> > Currently the box is running 10.2R1.8. It has a MIC-3
p-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Richard A
Steenbergen
Sent: January-28-11 5:17 PM
To: Keith
Cc: Juniper-Nsp
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX480 JunOS version.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Keith wrote:
>
> Currently the box is running 10.2R1.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:35:11PM -0800, Keith wrote:
>
> Thanks Richard. I see that 10.4R1.9 is out. Have you had a go at that
> version yet?
Someone I know tried it on MX and it blew up catastrophically, so we
didn't even bother looking at it. 10.4 is the next extended EoL release
after 10.
On 1/28/2011 2:16 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Keith wrote:
Currently the box is running 10.2R1.8. It has a MIC-3D 20 port card,
MPC1, and RE-S-2000.
Juniper just put out a tech bulletin this morning admitting the obvious,
that 10.2R1/R2/R3 and 10
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Keith wrote:
>
> Currently the box is running 10.2R1.8. It has a MIC-3D 20 port card,
> MPC1, and RE-S-2000.
Juniper just put out a tech bulletin this morning admitting the obvious,
that 10.2R1/R2/R3 and 10.3R1 for Trio (MPC) cards are massively broken
Hi.
Our 480 is now online and getting it ready.
As I have seen many messages on this list regarding buggy JunOS versions
and before I go to JTAC and see what they suggest I'd like to get some
feedback from here.
We will be doing straight ethernet, speaking BGP to our upstream, only
taking a
13 matches
Mail list logo
