[j-nsp] 10.4R9 on MX stable?
Hey there. We need to upgrade from our 10.0R3.10 releases on MX platform. Up until a month ago we were ready to roll to recommended release 10.4R8 and well, we know that wasn't exactly a perfect solution ;) Has anyone got 10.4R9 running on MX platform in production yet? I'm looking for any feedback as JTAC is recommending we go to this release. Thanks, Paul ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.4R9 on MX stable?
I'm running 10.4R7.5 for now. I haven't even loaded R9 yet. On Feb 17, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Paul Stewart wrote: Hey there. We need to upgrade from our 10.0R3.10 releases on MX platform. Up until a month ago we were ready to roll to recommended release 10.4R8 and well, we know that wasn't exactly a perfect solution ;) Has anyone got 10.4R9 running on MX platform in production yet? I'm looking for any feedback as JTAC is recommending we go to this release. Thanks, Paul ___ 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] 10.4R9 on MX stable?
Thanks.. We're also ok with going to an 11.x release if there's a such thing as a golden release in the 11.x code...;) Paul -Original Message- From: OBrien, Will [mailto:obri...@missouri.edu] Sent: February-17-12 11:26 AM To: Paul Stewart Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.4R9 on MX stable? I'm running 10.4R7.5 for now. I haven't even loaded R9 yet. On Feb 17, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Paul Stewart wrote: Hey there. We need to upgrade from our 10.0R3.10 releases on MX platform. Up until a month ago we were ready to roll to recommended release 10.4R8 and well, we know that wasn't exactly a perfect solution ;) Has anyone got 10.4R9 running on MX platform in production yet? I'm looking for any feedback as JTAC is recommending we go to this release. Thanks, Paul ___ 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] 10.4R9 on MX stable?
Hi, On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 17:18, Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org wrote: Has anyone got 10.4R9 running on MX platform in production yet? I'm looking for any feedback as JTAC is recommending we go to this release. hopefully I can share some results on Tuesday...looks fine in the lab so far, but then again, so did 10.4R8 :P 10.4R8 contained many fixes we were waiting for, so 10.4R7 was a no-go for us. *keeps fingers crossed* --Daniel. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.4R9 on MX stable?
We've had it loaded in the lab for a week now. Nothing seems broken yet. We're still testing. Serge From: Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 12:18:02 PM Subject: [j-nsp] 10.4R9 on MX stable? Hey there. We need to upgrade from our 10.0R3.10 releases on MX platform. Up until a month ago we were ready to roll to recommended release 10.4R8 and well, we know that wasn't exactly a perfect solution ;) Has anyone got 10.4R9 running on MX platform in production yet? I'm looking for any feedback as JTAC is recommending we go to this release. Thanks, Paul ___ 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] 10.4R9 on MX stable?
Hi Paul, Second that. Have it on a Lab MX240 with DPC-EQ Cards at the moment. Running IPv4/IPv6 (PE6), OSPF ABR, OSPF3, iBGP, MPLS, RSVP, LDP, L3VPNs, and BGP VPLS w/LDP VPLS Mesh Group Interworking. No issues so far. Haven't Tried with Trio/MPC cards yet - that'll be next week. I'll let you know. We want to push this out ASAP to fix other issues we've found in the 10.4 train with ae QoS bugs. - Chris. On 2012-02-18, at 5:21 AM, Serge Vautour wrote: We've had it loaded in the lab for a week now. Nothing seems broken yet. We're still testing. Serge From: Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 12:18:02 PM Subject: [j-nsp] 10.4R9 on MX stable? Hey there. We need to upgrade from our 10.0R3.10 releases on MX platform. Up until a month ago we were ready to roll to recommended release 10.4R8 and well, we know that wasn't exactly a perfect solution ;) Has anyone got 10.4R9 running on MX platform in production yet? I'm looking for any feedback as JTAC is recommending we go to this release. Thanks, Paul ___ 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] 10.4R9 on MX stable?
Hi, It seems there is a common agreement that 10.4R8 is not the release to Ho with. Now I feel left out of the party, as I have no idea what you folks are talking about. I am also feeling a little nervous, as we are in the staging phase of a 12 router network and they are all running 10.4R8. Amos Sent from my iPhone On 17 Feb 2012, at 18:21, Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.orgmailto:p...@paulstewart.org wrote: Hey there. We need to upgrade from our 10.0R3.10 releases on MX platform. Up until a month ago we were ready to roll to recommended release 10.4R8 and well, we know that wasn't exactly a perfect solution ;) Has anyone got 10.4R9 running on MX platform in production yet? I'm looking for any feedback as JTAC is recommending we go to this release. Thanks, Paul ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.netmailto: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] 10.4R9 on MX stable?
Thanks Serge. that's kind of where we're at... seems ok but I can't recreate everything it could come across in the wild..;) Cheers, Paul From: Serge Vautour [mailto:sergevaut...@yahoo.ca] Sent: February-17-12 1:21 PM To: Paul Stewart; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.4R9 on MX stable? We've had it loaded in the lab for a week now. Nothing seems broken yet. We're still testing. Serge _ From: Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 12:18:02 PM Subject: [j-nsp] 10.4R9 on MX stable? Hey there. We need to upgrade from our 10.0R3.10 releases on MX platform. Up until a month ago we were ready to roll to recommended release 10.4R8 and well, we know that wasn't exactly a perfect solution ;) Has anyone got 10.4R9 running on MX platform in production yet? I'm looking for any feedback as JTAC is recommending we go to this release. Thanks, Paul ___ 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] 10.4R9 on MX stable?
On 2/17/2012 10:27 AM, Paul Stewart wrote: Thanks.. We're also ok with going to an 11.x release if there's a such thing as a golden release in the 11.x code...;) I had to jump to 11.2 for static units with auto-configure on the same interface on an MX80 for subscriber services. Running into a slew of problems, although it is at least operational and doing what it needs to do. 11.x makes me cringe, but unfortunately I require features. I'm running a 4 problem ticket right now on it, from slow dns resolver to delays on show interface displaying the logical units, to race conditions causing issues between auto-configure and configuring static units (they didn't have the static units override existing auto-configured units that shared the same vlan), to sampled eating filedescriptors until the box runs out if it is configured even if not applied to an interface. My mx80s and mx960s running 10.4R7.5 have been stable so far, although I did notice some weirdness sometimes withe the ae setups (when the AE was first brought up, isis came up, arp worked, but ping/bgp did not; disable/enable fixed it and it has stayed stable so far, but I don't trust it). Jack ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] 10.4R9 on MX stable?
Hey Jack.. That's interesting about 11.2 on MX80 - just ran into a series of issues with MX80 on subscriber management (PPPOE in this case). We went with latest 11.4 release (needed features only available in that release so we thought) and ran into weird TFEB throttling issues of which there is a known PR applicable to the MX240/MX480/MX960 but told the PR isn't for MX80. Waited for a week with Juniper to suggest a resolution and went to 11.2S release only to have the same TFEB problem (exactly same issue as PR covers) - Juniper again unable to resolve so went to 10.2R release and that solved the TFEB issue, only to be hit with a bunch of other problems still pending resolution from Juniper... these latest issues involved CPU load average sitting around 4.5 and 90% memory utilization as soon as we turned up about 1300 PPPOE subscribers - other issues as well. It's frustrating when the current release on the MX80 that is recommended is exactly what we're trying to run and it's been a disaster to be honest... 9 days at a customer site and still no solid answers on how to get these problems resolved. Paul -Original Message- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 7:53 PM To: Paul Stewart Cc: 'OBrien, Will'; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10.4R9 on MX stable? On 2/17/2012 10:27 AM, Paul Stewart wrote: Thanks.. We're also ok with going to an 11.x release if there's a such thing as a golden release in the 11.x code...;) I had to jump to 11.2 for static units with auto-configure on the same interface on an MX80 for subscriber services. Running into a slew of problems, although it is at least operational and doing what it needs to do. 11.x makes me cringe, but unfortunately I require features. I'm running a 4 problem ticket right now on it, from slow dns resolver to delays on show interface displaying the logical units, to race conditions causing issues between auto-configure and configuring static units (they didn't have the static units override existing auto-configured units that shared the same vlan), to sampled eating filedescriptors until the box runs out if it is configured even if not applied to an interface. My mx80s and mx960s running 10.4R7.5 have been stable so far, although I did notice some weirdness sometimes withe the ae setups (when the AE was first brought up, isis came up, arp worked, but ping/bgp did not; disable/enable fixed it and it has stayed stable so far, but I don't trust it). Jack ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
