[j-nsp] Re: xntpd newbie ....
harshit at juniper.net
Tue Feb 1 14:50:55 EST 2005
Actually it should have read the other way round. If service-pics
are not installed you will see this error, I missed the "not" :-)
Or if you remove the PIC later on from the system. 10.0.0.1 is not
installed in the table, unless there is a pic in the system. 10.0.0.1
and 10.0.0.x (pic internal address) are ends of a point to point
interface. Its purely informational message and will be lowered to
DEBUG level as part of PR 55431. I don't know why you didn't see it
prior to 7.0R2.7
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas at netcore.fi]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 6:54 AM
To: Jared Mauch
Cc: Harshit Kumar; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Re: xntpd newbie ....
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:41:29PM -0800, Harshit Kumar wrote:
>> Those messages aren't going to harm the system in any way. 10.0.0.1
>> is an internal address which resides in an internal routing instance
>> (__juniper_private1__). You will see it when you have certain
>> pics installed. Its for communication between RE and the PIC only and
>> not world-reachable.
> Seems that that IP shouldn't be attempted to be bound to by
> ntp at all if it's not globally reachable.
> isn't that a bug then that your IPC ip range is being leaked?
Regarding Harshit's first comment..
FWIW, this has nothing to do with services pics. We have none of
those, nor routing instances of our own, and when we upgraded to
7.0R2.7, started seeing these messages.
PR55431 despite its pretty bogus description is probably tracking this
issue and there is no need to report it (again) ?
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
More information about the juniper-nsp