Re: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Nathan Ward]

> On 14/12/2017, at 10:19 AM, Karl Gerhard  wrote:
> 
> Hello Aaron
> 
> they're mentioning MC-LAG because I explicitly asked about bugs/problems 
> related to MC-LAG.
> 
> A big "thank you" to everyone who contributed to the discussion and shared 
> their experinces.
> 
> @Nathan:
> Switch problems with Junos 15.1 - for example this: 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/6tcf7p/lacp_between_juniper_switch_and_linux_host_not/
> This is a complete show stopper for us since it means that after a reboot or 
> a power outage your network will not come back up, you need to log in into 
> every switch and execute commands on the FreeBSD console…

That’s pretty balls. Perhaps you can script it to work around it? Bad to have 
to work around it though eh.

> Another example of problems with Junos 15.1 is related to vlan-tagging not 
> working properly on me0.

We would never VLAN tag on me interfaces, so, no problem! Can I ask why you do?

--
Nathan Ward

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Karl Gerhard]

Hello Aaron

they're mentioning MC-LAG because I explicitly asked about bugs/problems 
related to MC-LAG.

A big "thank you" to everyone who contributed to the discussion and shared 
their experinces.

@Nathan:
Switch problems with Junos 15.1 - for example this: 
https://www.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/6tcf7p/lacp_between_juniper_switch_and_linux_host_not/
This is a complete show stopper for us since it means that after a reboot or a 
power outage your network will not come back up, you need to log in into every 
switch and execute commands on the FreeBSD console...
Another example of problems with Junos 15.1 is related to vlan-tagging not 
working properly on me0.

Regards
Karl

On 2017-12-13 22:00, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Is there a reason why everyone keep saying things, and then says "With 
> MC-LAG"  or "without MC-LAG" ?
>
> I mean is there a reason why you all feel that you have to say with/without 
> mc-lag ?
>
> I'm new to the MX960 and don't know if there is something significant about 
> junos code and mc-lag that I should know about.
>
> -Aaron
>
> ___
> 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] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Aaron Gould]

Is there a reason why everyone keep saying things, and then says "With MC-LAG"  
or "without MC-LAG" ?

I mean is there a reason why you all feel that you have to say with/without 
mc-lag ?

I'm new to the MX960 and don't know if there is something significant about 
junos code and mc-lag that I should know about.

-Aaron

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Olivier Benghozi]

Cosmetic bugs seen here: PR1254675, PR1289974, PR1293543, PR1261423 (all fixed 
in 16.1R6, can be seen in release notes).

> On 13 dec. 2017 at 16:29, Michael Hare  wrote :
> 
> We are looking at moving to 16.1R6 within the new few weeks on an MX2010 from 
> 14.1.  Several folks have mentioned cosmetics bugs in 16.1.  If anyone is 
> willing to highlight (publically or privately) PRs or high level descriptions 
> of the cosmetic issues (no more than a sentence), I'd be curious.  Admittedly 
> I can read the release notes, but there is value in hearing from others what 
> cosmetics bugs affected them.

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Nitzan Tzelniker]

We are running MX480 with NG-RE and Junous Fusion and doing basic MPLS on
17.2R2 so far without an issue
We started with 16.1R5 and hit by Fusion issue that force us to upgrade to
17.1R2 where we hit by another Fusion issue

Nitzan

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Michael Hare <michael.h...@wisc.edu> wrote:

> We are looking at moving to 16.1R6 within the new few weeks on an MX2010
> from 14.1.  Several folks have mentioned cosmetics bugs in 16.1.  If anyone
> is willing to highlight (publically or privately) PRs or high level
> descriptions of the cosmetic issues (no more than a sentence), I'd be
> curious.  Admittedly I can read the release notes, but there is value in
> hearing from others what cosmetics bugs affected them.
>
> -Michael
>
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf
> >>Of Olivier Benghozi
> >>Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 4:45 PM
> >>To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> >>Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?
> >>
> >>We've been running 16.1R4-S3 or S4 for 4/5 months (we had to choose
> >>between 15.1F and 16.1R for our MPC7s), without MC-LAG.
> >>We've been hit by about 8 PR, including 4 non-cosmetic ones (with 3 also
> >>present in 15.1F anyway).
> >>Most of them are allegedly fixed in 16.1R6.
> >>17 might be the next step in 6 months.
> >>
> >>> On 12 dec. 2017 at 22:01, Nikolas Geyer <n...@neko.id.au> wrote :
> >>>
> >>> We’re running 16.1R4 and it’s been stable for the most part, aside
> from a
> >>few annoying cosmetic problems.
> >>>
> >>> Running it on MX480’s and 960’s, a variety of RE’s, a variety of
> >>MPC2/MPC3/MPC4/MPC7, usual protocols such as BGP, OSPF, MPLS, RSVP
> >>and a few Tbps of traffic. No MC-LAG unfortunately though.
> >>>
> >>> Will probably schedule moving up to 17 some time early 2018.
> >>
> >>___
> >>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] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Michael Hare]

We are looking at moving to 16.1R6 within the new few weeks on an MX2010 from 
14.1.  Several folks have mentioned cosmetics bugs in 16.1.  If anyone is 
willing to highlight (publically or privately) PRs or high level descriptions 
of the cosmetic issues (no more than a sentence), I'd be curious.  Admittedly I 
can read the release notes, but there is value in hearing from others what 
cosmetics bugs affected them.

-Michael

>>-Original Message-
>>From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf
>>Of Olivier Benghozi
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 4:45 PM
>>To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>>Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?
>>
>>We've been running 16.1R4-S3 or S4 for 4/5 months (we had to choose
>>between 15.1F and 16.1R for our MPC7s), without MC-LAG.
>>We've been hit by about 8 PR, including 4 non-cosmetic ones (with 3 also
>>present in 15.1F anyway).
>>Most of them are allegedly fixed in 16.1R6.
>>17 might be the next step in 6 months.
>>
>>> On 12 dec. 2017 at 22:01, Nikolas Geyer <n...@neko.id.au> wrote :
>>>
>>> We’re running 16.1R4 and it’s been stable for the most part, aside from a
>>few annoying cosmetic problems.
>>>
>>> Running it on MX480’s and 960’s, a variety of RE’s, a variety of
>>MPC2/MPC3/MPC4/MPC7, usual protocols such as BGP, OSPF, MPLS, RSVP
>>and a few Tbps of traffic. No MC-LAG unfortunately though.
>>>
>>> Will probably schedule moving up to 17 some time early 2018.
>>
>>___
>>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] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Olivier Benghozi]

We've been running 16.1R4-S3 or S4 for 4/5 months (we had to choose between 
15.1F and 16.1R for our MPC7s), without MC-LAG.
We've been hit by about 8 PR, including 4 non-cosmetic ones (with 3 also 
present in 15.1F anyway).
Most of them are allegedly fixed in 16.1R6.
17 might be the next step in 6 months.

> On 12 dec. 2017 at 22:01, Nikolas Geyer  wrote :
> 
> We’re running 16.1R4 and it’s been stable for the most part, aside from a few 
> annoying cosmetic problems.
> 
> Running it on MX480’s and 960’s, a variety of RE’s, a variety of 
> MPC2/MPC3/MPC4/MPC7, usual protocols such as BGP, OSPF, MPLS, RSVP and a few 
> Tbps of traffic. No MC-LAG unfortunately though.
> 
> Will probably schedule moving up to 17 some time early 2018.

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Nikolas Geyer]

We’re running 16.1R4 and it’s been stable for the most part, aside from a few 
annoying cosmetic problems.

Running it on MX480’s and 960’s, a variety of RE’s, a variety of 
MPC2/MPC3/MPC4/MPC7, usual protocols such as BGP, OSPF, MPLS, RSVP and a few 
Tbps of traffic. No MC-LAG unfortunately though.

Will probably schedule moving up to 17 some time early 2018.

Sent from my iPhone

On 12 Dec 2017, at 2:20 pm, Niall Donaghy 
<niall.dona...@geant.org<mailto:niall.dona...@geant.org>> wrote:

Hello,

We are running 15.1F6-S6.4 on MX480 and MX960. No MC-LAG.
We rolled this out after Juniper PIIR and SURR, and our own internal 
type-certification process.
We needed F6 for EVPN and streaming telemetry features.
Several scary service-affecting bugs came out in the PBN notices, so we 
upgraded twice from the initial version and, hence, now on S6.4.

There are a number of threatening bugs in S6.4 still, but so far the experience 
has been good.

We are running RE-S-1800x4 so are immune to PR1312308.
Your REs are affected, therefore you should check the PR and TSB, which 
recommends 15.1F6-S10 or 15.1F7-S3.

TSB17205 
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content=TSB17205=SUBSCRIPTION
 - PR1312308 - All protocols time out and FPCs are restarting after transient 
SSD freeze
PR1312308 
https://prsearch.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=prcontent=PR1312308 - All 
protocols time out and FPCs are restarting after transient SSD freeze

I strongly recommend you do your due diligence in researching bugs affecting 
your proposed hardware and software versions; there be dragons.

I can tell you for 15.1F6-S6.4 we got 10 PBNs in October this year, thankfully 
none in November, and for December, let's see what we get for Xmas..
Br,
Niall

Niall Donaghy
Senior Network Engineer
GÉANT
T: +44 (0)1223 371393
M: +44 (0) 7557770303
Skype: niall.donaghy-dante
PGP Key ID: 0x77680027
nic-hdl: NGD-RIPE

Networks • Services • People
Learn more at www.geant.org<http://www.geant.org>​
​GÉANT is the collective trading name of the GÉANT Association and GEANT 
Limited.

GÉANT Vereniging (Association) is registered in the Netherlands with the 
Chamber of Commerce in Amsterdam. Registration number: 40535155. Registered 
office: Hoekenrode 3, 1102BR Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
GEANT Limited  is registered in England & Wales. Registration number: 2806796. 
Registered office: City House, 126-130 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1PQ, UK.



-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
Karl Gerhard
Sent: 12 December 2017 09:53
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Subject: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

Hello

we've had very bad experience with Junos 15.1 on our switches (EX4550, EX4300, 
EX4200).
Now we're getting new MX960s with 2xRE-S-X6-64G and unfortunately the minimum 
required Junos version for this RE is 15.1. Can anyone share their experience 
with Junos 15.1 on MX960? Is it as bad as it is on the switches? Would it be 
wiser to jump directly to 16.1/16.2/17.1/17.2/17.3?

We're especially interested in bugs/problems related to MC-LAG.

Regards
Karl
___
juniper-nsp mailing list 
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
___
juniper-nsp mailing list 
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto: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] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Niall Donaghy]

Hello,

We are running 15.1F6-S6.4 on MX480 and MX960. No MC-LAG.
We rolled this out after Juniper PIIR and SURR, and our own internal 
type-certification process.
We needed F6 for EVPN and streaming telemetry features.
Several scary service-affecting bugs came out in the PBN notices, so we 
upgraded twice from the initial version and, hence, now on S6.4.

There are a number of threatening bugs in S6.4 still, but so far the experience 
has been good.

We are running RE-S-1800x4 so are immune to PR1312308.
Your REs are affected, therefore you should check the PR and TSB, which 
recommends 15.1F6-S10 or 15.1F7-S3.

TSB17205 
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content=TSB17205=SUBSCRIPTION
 - PR1312308 - All protocols time out and FPCs are restarting after transient 
SSD freeze
PR1312308 
https://prsearch.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=prcontent=PR1312308 - All 
protocols time out and FPCs are restarting after transient SSD freeze

I strongly recommend you do your due diligence in researching bugs affecting 
your proposed hardware and software versions; there be dragons.

I can tell you for 15.1F6-S6.4 we got 10 PBNs in October this year, thankfully 
none in November, and for December, let's see what we get for Xmas..
Br,
Niall

Niall Donaghy
Senior Network Engineer
GÉANT
T: +44 (0)1223 371393
M: +44 (0) 7557770303
Skype: niall.donaghy-dante
PGP Key ID: 0x77680027
nic-hdl: NGD-RIPE

Networks • Services • People 
Learn more at www.geant.org​
​GÉANT is the collective trading name of the GÉANT Association and GEANT 
Limited.

GÉANT Vereniging (Association) is registered in the Netherlands with the 
Chamber of Commerce in Amsterdam. Registration number: 40535155. Registered 
office: Hoekenrode 3, 1102BR Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
GEANT Limited  is registered in England & Wales. Registration number: 2806796. 
Registered office: City House, 126-130 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1PQ, UK.



-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
Karl Gerhard
Sent: 12 December 2017 09:53
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

Hello

we've had very bad experience with Junos 15.1 on our switches (EX4550, EX4300, 
EX4200).
Now we're getting new MX960s with 2xRE-S-X6-64G and unfortunately the minimum 
required Junos version for this RE is 15.1. Can anyone share their experience 
with Junos 15.1 on MX960? Is it as bad as it is on the switches? Would it be 
wiser to jump directly to 16.1/16.2/17.1/17.2/17.3?

We're especially interested in bugs/problems related to MC-LAG.

Regards
Karl
___
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] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Chris Wopat]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Karl Gerhard  wrote:

> Hello
>
> we've had very bad experience with Junos 15.1 on our switches (EX4550,
> EX4300, EX4200).
> Now we're getting new MX960s with 2xRE-S-X6-64G and unfortunately the
> minimum required Junos version for this RE is 15.1. Can anyone share their
> experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960? Is it as bad as it is on the switches?
> Would it be wiser to jump directly to 16.1/16.2/17.1/17.2/17.3?
>

We've been running 15.1F7 where required (RE-S-X6 + MC7E) and 15.1R6 on
other MX's since last summer. no MC-LAG.

Minor issues which are mostly cosmetic such as PR1243071 (SNMP incorrectly
reporting discards as errors).

Junos 15.x is the first release running FreeBSD 10 + adds in virtualization
(at least on that RE) so we honestly expected many more issues than we
actually had.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Rolf Hanßen]

Hello,

we run a pair of MX960/RE-S-X6-64G (without MC-LAG) since a year now with
16.1.
In first release we hit 2 bugs, 16.1R4-S2.2 works fine since 6 months.
Here also everybody was weeping about the evil new software, in the last
year we had several situations we wanted to use working code from that new
box on amcient boxes that failed because of missing sw features (and MPC
cards).

kind regards
Rolf

> Hello
>
> we've had very bad experience with Junos 15.1 on our switches (EX4550,
> EX4300, EX4200).
> Now we're getting new MX960s with 2xRE-S-X6-64G and unfortunately the
> minimum required Junos version for this RE is 15.1. Can anyone share their
> experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960? Is it as bad as it is on the
> switches? Would it be wiser to jump directly to 16.1/16.2/17.1/17.2/17.3?
>
> We're especially interested in bugs/problems related to MC-LAG.
>
> Regards
> Karl


___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Sebastian Becker]

I recommend Junos 16.1R4 as minimum. They have done some improvements to the 
software quality.
We are on 16.1R4-S6.3 and it looks good so far.

— 
Sebastian Becker

> Am 12.12.2017 um 10:52 schrieb Karl Gerhard :
> 
> 
> Hello
> 
> we've had very bad experience with Junos 15.1 on our switches (EX4550, 
> EX4300, EX4200).
> Now we're getting new MX960s with 2xRE-S-X6-64G and unfortunately the minimum 
> required Junos version for this RE is 15.1. Can anyone share their experience 
> with Junos 15.1 on MX960? Is it as bad as it is on the switches? Would it be 
> wiser to jump directly to 16.1/16.2/17.1/17.2/17.3?
> 
> We're especially interested in bugs/problems related to MC-LAG.
> 
> Regards
> Karl
> ___
> 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] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Raphael Maunier]

Same here.

15.1 seems to be … not a good choice ( EX3300 / EX2200 )
For QFX10k/5k, I’m not sure If we can start using 17.2R2 or just wait for 17.3R2

Raphael


On 12/12/2017 10:52, "juniper-nsp on behalf of Karl Gerhard" 
 wrote:

Hello

we've had very bad experience with Junos 15.1 on our switches (EX4550, 
EX4300, EX4200).
Now we're getting new MX960s with 2xRE-S-X6-64G and unfortunately the 
minimum required Junos version for this RE is 15.1. Can anyone share their 
experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960? Is it as bad as it is on the switches? 
Would it be wiser to jump directly to 16.1/16.2/17.1/17.2/17.3?

We're especially interested in bugs/problems related to MC-LAG.

Regards
Karl
___
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] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Pierre Emeriaud]

> we've had very bad experience with Junos 15.1 on our switches (EX4550, 
> EX4300, EX4200).
> Now we're getting new MX960s with 2xRE-S-X6-64G and unfortunately the minimum 
> required Junos version for this RE is 15.1. Can anyone share their experience 
> with Junos 15.1 on MX960? Is it as bad as it is on the switches? Would it be 
> wiser to jump directly to 16.1/16.2/17.1/17.2/17.3?
>
> We're especially interested in bugs/problems related to MC-LAG.

We've been hit with several bugs on 15.1F5, from S4.6 to S7. S8 seems
to work fine for our usecase, and sleep is finally possible.

But so far, no issues with MC-LAG, with either two 15.1 boxen or a mix
of 14.1 and 15.1.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Aaron Gould]

Why wouldn't we all use the juniper.net jtac recommended software versions
web site to determine at least a starting point ?

https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content=KB21476=METADAT
A

I just bought (6) MX960's and I see them arriving with 15.1F7.3 on RE's
RE-S-2X00x6 with Enhanced MX SCB 2

I'm new with the MX960 platform, so I will be learning as I go.

- Aaron


___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[adamv0025]

Interesting choices one has with modern codes.
So how I see it we now have the old fashioned approach of waiting till the
code gets a critical mass resulting in most bugs to be fixed -then consider
for internal testing and deployment.
Or just go for the latest codes -that promises to catch like 90% of bugs via
new advanced internal testing strategies. 
That kind of shifts the paradigm right?
>From do you want to be the first adopter of a new code, to do you want to be
the first adopter of the vendor's new code testing strategy -and rely on it
to be as good as advertised.

But I agree one can select any code and if you do your rigorous in house
testing to make sure the code works with your hw and features who are we to
say otherwise right?

To your point b) -there's also an option for JSUs -but this platform seem
much less common than SMUs in XR so you might get bugs in JSU framework.

Also latest XR promises to customize the installation so you can cherry pick
only protocols you need hopefully resulting in less regression bugs. 

adam

netconsultings.com
::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry::

> -Original Message-
> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf
> Of Saku Ytti
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 10:47 AM
> To: Karl Gerhard
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?
> 
> Hey,
> 
> Personally my strategy with software has always been:
> 
> a) start with latest long term release
> b) if you need bug fixes, update to rebuilds
> c) if you need new features, update to latest long term release
> 
> I don't think software is like wine, I don't think it gets better as it
ages. And
> Juniper has done lot of good work on quality which only applies to late
> releases.
> 
> 15.1 will be EOL in under half a year. Just for support you want at least
16.1,
> but then why not jump straight to 17.3?
> 
> What ultimately makes you experience positive or negative can be behind
> complex set of variables which poorly translates to other networks. Rarely
> there is some vintage release number which is universally good or
universally
> bad.
> 
> I'd start testing 17.3 and go from there.
> 
> 
> On 12 December 2017 at 11:52, Karl Gerhard <karl_g...@gmx.at> wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > we've had very bad experience with Junos 15.1 on our switches (EX4550,
> EX4300, EX4200).
> > Now we're getting new MX960s with 2xRE-S-X6-64G and unfortunately the
> minimum required Junos version for this RE is 15.1. Can anyone share their
> experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960? Is it as bad as it is on the
switches?
> Would it be wiser to jump directly to 16.1/16.2/17.1/17.2/17.3?
> >
> > We're especially interested in bugs/problems related to MC-LAG.
> >
> > Regards
> > Karl
> > ___
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 
> 
> 
> --
>   ++ytti
> ___
> 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] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Javier Valero]

Hi,

We had a bad experience with MX960 and 16.1R3. We were affected by multiple 
PRs. Some of them silent and "malicious" .

However, we have a good experience with 15.1 on 4550 and 4200.
Which problems did you found on it?

Regards.
Javier Valero | IslaLink / OranLink


-Mensaje original-
De: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] En nombre de Karl 
Gerhard
Enviado el: martes, 12 de diciembre de 2017 10:53
Para: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Asunto: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

Hello

we've had very bad experience with Junos 15.1 on our switches (EX4550, EX4300, 
EX4200).
Now we're getting new MX960s with 2xRE-S-X6-64G and unfortunately the minimum 
required Junos version for this RE is 15.1. Can anyone share their experience 
with Junos 15.1 on MX960? Is it as bad as it is on the switches? Would it be 
wiser to jump directly to 16.1/16.2/17.1/17.2/17.3?

We're especially interested in bugs/problems related to MC-LAG.

Regards
Karl
___
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] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Saku Ytti]

Hey,

Personally my strategy with software has always been:

a) start with latest long term release
b) if you need bug fixes, update to rebuilds
c) if you need new features, update to latest long term release

I don't think software is like wine, I don't think it gets better as
it ages. And Juniper has done lot of good work on quality which only
applies to late releases.

15.1 will be EOL in under half a year. Just for support you want at
least 16.1, but then why not jump straight to 17.3?

What ultimately makes you experience positive or negative can be
behind complex set of variables which poorly translates to other
networks. Rarely there is some vintage release number which is
universally good or universally bad.

I'd start testing 17.3 and go from there.


On 12 December 2017 at 11:52, Karl Gerhard  wrote:
> Hello
>
> we've had very bad experience with Junos 15.1 on our switches (EX4550, 
> EX4300, EX4200).
> Now we're getting new MX960s with 2xRE-S-X6-64G and unfortunately the minimum 
> required Junos version for this RE is 15.1. Can anyone share their experience 
> with Junos 15.1 on MX960? Is it as bad as it is on the switches? Would it be 
> wiser to jump directly to 16.1/16.2/17.1/17.2/17.3?
>
> We're especially interested in bugs/problems related to MC-LAG.
>
> Regards
> Karl
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp



-- 
  ++ytti
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Nathan Ward]

Hi,

> On 12/12/2017, at 10:52 PM, Karl Gerhard  wrote:
> 
> Hello
> 
> we've had very bad experience with Junos 15.1 on our switches (EX4550, 
> EX4300, EX4200).
> Now we're getting new MX960s with 2xRE-S-X6-64G and unfortunately the minimum 
> required Junos version for this RE is 15.1. Can anyone share their experience 
> with Junos 15.1 on MX960? Is it as bad as it is on the switches? Would it be 
> wiser to jump directly to 16.1/16.2/17.1/17.2/17.3?
> 
> We're especially interested in bugs/problems related to MC-LAG.


15.1R6 works great for me on MX480, which is more or less the same box. l3vpn, 
l2circuit, pwhe, BNG all seem to work well. No MC-LAG sorry.
What sort of trouble have you had on the switches? Are they control plane 
problems which would translate to the MX, or, are they forwarding?


___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

[j-nsp] Experience with Junos 15.1 on MX960?

[Karl Gerhard]

Hello

we've had very bad experience with Junos 15.1 on our switches (EX4550, EX4300, 
EX4200).
Now we're getting new MX960s with 2xRE-S-X6-64G and unfortunately the minimum 
required Junos version for this RE is 15.1. Can anyone share their experience 
with Junos 15.1 on MX960? Is it as bad as it is on the switches? Would it be 
wiser to jump directly to 16.1/16.2/17.1/17.2/17.3?

We're especially interested in bugs/problems related to MC-LAG.

Regards
Karl
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp