Re: [j-nsp] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX - Update!
Den 01.02.2012 08:26, skrev sth...@nethelp.no: Yup.. our hindsight would have been to continue deploying E/ERX ;) While we don't use those, I certainly agree that they sound like a much better option from Juniper than the MX. The Juniper ERX/E-series has its own series of challenges. They have a *lot* of BRAS functionality which Juniper is busy recreating on MX. However, stability can be ca challenge. And you *really* don't want to do a software *downgrade* on those boxes... That being said - our E310s have been rock solid. Really. Just don't put too much stuff into them.. Bjørn Tore ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:32:26 AM James Jones wrote: I am just curious what issues you guys are having with the junos releases? Run through the archives to get a feel for what issues folk are facing. And these are just the issues that folk have decided to share. There are others that aren't shared, or folk that aren't sharing entirely. I am currently not having issues with any of my Juniper kit. It's really dependent on how kinky you're running your boxes. If you look at my route reflectors (M120's), 10.4R4.5 is solid, no issues. If you look at my PE Aggregation routers (MX480's, M320's, T320's), you don't want to know. If you look at the MX480 we're trying to make a BRAS, all bets are off :-). It would be interesting to understand the use cases in which you are seeing issues. The problem is that since Junos 9.4, we've all been thinking and hoping that the R4 release of that train (and all the ones following it) would be the ideal one. The solid one. The one on which we can hang our boots on and kick back. But alas, that was never to be the case, and given we're now literally peeking at Junos 13 (or 14, or 15, whatever they decide to do after 12), it's amazing that we're all still chasing that ever elusive dream of a stable Junos. Which, by the way, is not to discount all the good work that Juniper have done, particularly since the debacle that was Junos 10.2, but given that operators need to choose between: o Stable code. o Code that features you actually want. o Code that will be under Juniper EEOL program. o Code that will run new hardware. o Code that will fix all issues past without bringing issues present. ... you can see where all the frustration is coming from. What's worse, Junos 8 was a dream, so we all know what it's like to have good code :-). Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX
One incredible frustration we're going through lately on the MX boxes is the BRAS function as Mark mentioned briefly . we're up to bleeding edge code now (11.4R1.14) just to get what we consider typical features of a BRAS box. Combine that with the first BRAS box I've seen that is picky about Radius VSA's and it makes it really difficult to deploy. We are not sure if the word stable enters the equation yet as a BRAS neither - time will tell as we're pushing out several of these boxes shortly despite concerns around code. Paul -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:05 AM To: James Jones Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:32:26 AM James Jones wrote: I am just curious what issues you guys are having with the junos releases? Run through the archives to get a feel for what issues folk are facing. And these are just the issues that folk have decided to share. There are others that aren't shared, or folk that aren't sharing entirely. I am currently not having issues with any of my Juniper kit. It's really dependent on how kinky you're running your boxes. If you look at my route reflectors (M120's), 10.4R4.5 is solid, no issues. If you look at my PE Aggregation routers (MX480's, M320's, T320's), you don't want to know. If you look at the MX480 we're trying to make a BRAS, all bets are off :-). It would be interesting to understand the use cases in which you are seeing issues. The problem is that since Junos 9.4, we've all been thinking and hoping that the R4 release of that train (and all the ones following it) would be the ideal one. The solid one. The one on which we can hang our boots on and kick back. But alas, that was never to be the case, and given we're now literally peeking at Junos 13 (or 14, or 15, whatever they decide to do after 12), it's amazing that we're all still chasing that ever elusive dream of a stable Junos. Which, by the way, is not to discount all the good work that Juniper have done, particularly since the debacle that was Junos 10.2, but given that operators need to choose between: o Stable code. o Code that features you actually want. o Code that will be under Juniper EEOL program. o Code that will run new hardware. o Code that will fix all issues past without bringing issues present. ... you can see where all the frustration is coming from. What's worse, Junos 8 was a dream, so we all know what it's like to have good code :-). Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 06:12:02 PM Paul Stewart wrote: One incredible frustration we're going through lately on the MX boxes is the BRAS function as Mark mentioned briefly . we're up to bleeding edge code now (11.4R1.14) just to get what we consider typical features of a BRAS box. Combine that with the first BRAS box I've seen that is picky about Radius VSA's and it makes it really difficult to deploy. We are not sure if the word stable enters the equation yet as a BRAS neither - time will tell as we're pushing out several of these boxes shortly despite concerns around code. Ditto. The MX is nowhere near ready to run as BRAS. But like you, we decided to migrate to it, so we have no choice but to run bleeding edge Junos 11.4R1 as well, just to get basic things the outgoing Redback is able to do, as well as some IPv6. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX - Update!
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 06:26:44 PM Mark Tinka wrote: The MX is nowhere near ready to run as BRAS. But like you, we decided to migrate to it, so we have no choice but to run bleeding edge Junos 11.4R1 as well, just to get basic things the outgoing Redback is able to do, as well as some IPv6. In hindsight, we probably should have gone with Cisco's ASR1006. Oh well... Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX - Update!
Yup.. our hindsight would have been to continue deploying E/ERX ;) Paul -Original Message- From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mti...@globaltransit.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:28 AM To: Paul Stewart Cc: 'James Jones'; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX - Update! On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 06:26:44 PM Mark Tinka wrote: The MX is nowhere near ready to run as BRAS. But like you, we decided to migrate to it, so we have no choice but to run bleeding edge Junos 11.4R1 as well, just to get basic things the outgoing Redback is able to do, as well as some IPv6. In hindsight, we probably should have gone with Cisco's ASR1006. Oh well... Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX
Just noticed this today - Seems JNPR has filled out the recommended release JunOS matrix for all the products now (incl M, T, MX, QFX) http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=contentid=KB21476 - Chris. ... Riding the 10.4 MX Release Train. Next Stop, R9. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX
Hey Chris yeah, that just showed up about 2 weeks ago (at least that's when I noticed it). Since JTAC isn't supposed to provide you with recommended releases on M/T/MX, at least this KB is a reference point... also nice to see them update the MX recommended release ;) Paul -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chris Kawchuk Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 3:54 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX Just noticed this today - Seems JNPR has filled out the recommended release JunOS matrix for all the products now (incl M, T, MX, QFX) http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=contentid=KB21476 - Chris. ... Riding the 10.4 MX Release Train. Next Stop, R9. ___ 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] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX
10.4R9? This makes me very happy... I thought they were going to stop at R8. I think they really need/want a golden release for the MX and R8 was supposed to be it. R9 will be good... we hope. Derick Winkworth CCIE #15672 (RS, SP), JNCIE-M #721 http://packetpushers.net/author/dwinkworth/ From: Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:12 AM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX Hey Chris yeah, that just showed up about 2 weeks ago (at least that's when I noticed it). Since JTAC isn't supposed to provide you with recommended releases on M/T/MX, at least this KB is a reference point... also nice to see them update the MX recommended release ;) Paul -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chris Kawchuk Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 3:54 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX Just noticed this today - Seems JNPR has filled out the recommended release JunOS matrix for all the products now (incl M, T, MX, QFX) http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=contentid=KB21476 - Chris. ... Riding the 10.4 MX Release Train. Next Stop, R9. ___ 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] Recommended Releases now posted for MX, M, T, QFX
that only took...about 5 years ? sweet, juniperdude. Chris Kawchuk [juniperd...@gmail.com] wrote: Just noticed this today - Seems JNPR has filled out the recommended release JunOS matrix for all the products now (incl M, T, MX, QFX) http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=contentid=KB21476 - Chris. ... Riding the 10.4 MX Release Train. Next Stop, R9. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliche. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis. - Robert Jay Lifton ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
