[j-nsp] Re: xntpd newbie ....

Harshit Kumar 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. is not 
installed in the table, unless there is a pic in the system.
 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


-----Original Message-----
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.
>>  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 mailing list