[j-nsp] EX4200 9.4R2.9 process crash on previously valid config

[Robert Raszuk]

Hi Richard,

 > Honestly, I think you should just give up now and accept the fact that
 > Juniper is the new Cisco.

Excuse me ? Cisco in vast majority of new products is way much better 
now. Yes historically there was an issue with IOS, but AFAIK that has 
been also fixed now.

* Look at highly dedicated XR team with an excellent and really 
technical leadership which knows exactly what they are doing (Hint: Just 
compare Prefix Independent Convergence capability);

* Look at top class in the industry ASR family of routers (Hint: ask 
your Juniper rep about number of bgp routes they can deal with on the 
top line of the router and then compare with ASR basic capability)

* Look at their procket OS based storage product line ...

Or at the end look which company offers you no technology religion into 
which (if any) encapsulation you as the customer want to choose for your 
services.

One company may offer you wide choice of GRE, L2TPv3, IPinIP or MPLS 
encapsulations all at line rate where all services you want to offer can 
run equally well on any of them while perhaps the other one may just 
lock you to the only one 4 letter encap type they are capable to offer.

 > It isn't 1999 any more, and Juniper isn't the same company. Stop
 > expecting superior products, that isn't the business model any more.
 > :(

You couldn't say it any better !

Cheers,
R.

PS: On the topic of the future of EX-series I will at this point refrain 
from commenting on the public list :).


> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:48:26PM -0400, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
>> Dearest Juniper, please pay more attention to validating configs in
>> newer JUNOS vs configs that are allowed on older EX-series software.
> 
> Honestly, I think you should just give up now and accept the fact that
> Juniper is the new Cisco. If you want to use EX you should probably just
> have a lab box that you test your configuration on before deploying,
> because they certainly aren't making any effort to QA test their code
> before shipping it.
> 
> Besides you should consider this progress. In older EX code you could 
> configure MTUs that didn't actually route in hardware (but that routing 
> protocols didn't know about, thus causing you to drop LSAs), or uRPF 
> which wasn't officially supported and caused the box to immediately 
> crash in an endless loop until you disabled it on console.
> 
> It isn't 1999 any more, and Juniper isn't the same company. Stop 
> expecting superior products, that isn't the business model any more. :(
>