[j-nsp] What's the latest code you're running on a mx?

[David Ball]

  Just a followup on this thread.  I've been testing 10.0R3.10 in the
lab with MX240, 480 and T640 and have had (somewhat surprisingly) good
results.  L2VPN, L2ckt, BGP-signalled VPLS (all w/QoS), L3VPN, LDP &
RSVP w/FRR (haven't tested much TE yet, mind you), even dabbled in
loop-free alternates (on the MX240 only), and haven't hit any
show-stoppers *yet*.  We're definitely SP-focused, not enterprise, so
YMMV.  They've even fixed (?) the functionality which broke (?) around
late 9.2 to early 9.3 timeframe which prevented you from doing 802.1p
BA classification on an outer VLAN tag if you were removing the outer
tag on ingress (they added a flag somewhere where you can specify
'inner' if you need to).

  It's said to have several fixes for the now infamous KRT Queue
issues as well, which have been discussed at length on the list.  I'm
cautiously optimistic about that one.

  That said....everything works in the lab, right?

David


On 1 May 2010 12:57, Mark Tinka <mtinka at globaltransit.net> wrote:
> On Sunday 02 May 2010 01:31:44 am Richard A Steenbergen
> wrote:
>
>> Don't try to compare code between platforms, they're
>>  entirely different beasts. :) In my experience the
>>  answer for EX is almost always "run the latest and
>>  greatest", and our deployment tests w/EX8216s and 10.1S1
>>  have actually been much better than I expected.
>>
>> In the end it all comes down to which features are you
>>  using, and what expectations do you have from your
>>  router. Layer 2 is dirt simple, hell even Foundry
>>  managed to mostly get that one right, so I have no doubt
>>  that if your configuration and network are simple enough
>>  you'll probably never see an issue. Try running a full
>>  routing service provider config with bgp isis mpls rsvp
>>  l2circuits firewalls etc and it's completely different
>>  story. :)
>
> I probably should have stated that "any platform" was
> confined to the latter case you describe, service provider
> routing and friends.
>
> We've had luck running code on core and edge switches in
> pure Layer 2 mode that have brought other networks to tears
> when Layer 3 services are turned on. Code stability
> requirements between either paradigm is sufficiently
> distinguishable, most times :-).
>
> Even though the platforms have some key differences, I'd be
> just as cautious running JUNOS 10.x on the M320, T640, M10i,
> e.t.c., as much as I would on the MX. But I guess this goes
> without saying for many :-).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>