[j-nsp] MX480 troubles.

[Richard A Steenbergen]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 01:27:15PM -0400, Chris Evans wrote:
> Question to you all...
> 
> It seems like alot of folks run bleeding edge code with some if these 
> major bugs popping up.I also get the impression that a lot of shops 
> don't test code before they deploy.
> 
> I'm just curious how this works for you. In my company we would get 
> seriously reprimanded for deploying software that is not tested and 
> any time we have outages we have to go through big hoops to understand 
> why how to fix etc.. so we do the best we can to deploy 
> architectures/platforms/code that wont have issues.
> 
> I couldn't imagine being bleeding edge in a service provider 
> environment, its just a concept I can't fathom being in the 
> environment I'm in..

Nobody wants to run bleeding edge code, but newer code is required to 
support new hardware such as the MX Trio cards (which are much cheaper 
per port, higher density, and more featureful). Unfortunately a lot of 
the "older" newer code that had initial support for the new hardware 
(such as 10.2) is *REALLY* buggy, which makes the bug fixes in "really 
new" code a lot more attractive. We've tried to look at 10.4R3 (since it 
finally fixes ISSU for us for the first time in close to 2 years :P), 
but it's still just too buggy in the lab, so we're still doing 10.3R3 on 
new MX deployments/upgrades. Overall 10.3R3 has been relatively "less 
bad" than a lot of other recent code.

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)