[j-nsp] JUNOS 10.4S6 for EX8200 - PR/676826

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 08:43:26 PM Majdi S. Abbas 
wrote:

> 	If you're on EX, you're probably pushed towards the
> bleeding edge.  To some degree this is true with MX, but
> it doesn't seem to be progressing in the way that it is
> with EX.

In the early days of Junos 9.x, when the EX debuted, yes, 
running the latest code worked for us because the thing was 
simply too knew, and features we'd taken for granted in IOS 
were simply not mature when the boxes stared shipping.

Fast-forward to today, and we're tracking them as we do the 
routers just for consistency. However, our use of these 
switches is pure Layer 2 Ethernet switching; so it's an 
alternative to whatever Cisco can do, i.e., nothing 
interesting that needs a specific software release.

10.4R4.5 today on our EX3200's/4200's.

>         SRX, you might as well run whatever came on it,
> because it won't work anyway.  The ALGs don't work, at
> times proxy arp doesn't work, your logs will be full of
> interesting (and scary) error messages, bugs that were
> supposed to have been fixed aren't, licensed features
> (like dynamic-vpn) don't work at ALL, etc.

None here, but the constant pain about them on the list is 
glaring.

Our office runs the Netscreens, and they seem solid! Don't 
know what's running there, Security team, e.t.c.

> 	J series, 9.3 if you can get away with it, since 
Juniper
> has decided to make that thing into an enterprise
> firewall and is willing to kill any and all actual
> routing capability that stands between them and this
> goal of being able to sell 'something else' to those
> already burned by the SRX.

A really sad story what Juniper decided to do with these 
boxes. Would have made decent route reflectors if Juniper 
concentrated on that as an application.

> 	M/T series probably have the most flexibility as 
they
> have been around long enough not to push people towards
> 10.4/11.[12] -- people can just select the appropriate
> SR.

Agree - we have far fewer issues with these as they're older 
and most of the new junk going into Junos today isn't to do 
with them save for a couple of features (which are sometimes 
hardware dependent) and general bug fixes.

We've hit some silly bugs on the M-/T-series lately, but 
nothing near as bad as the MX.

> 	If it sounds like I'm bitter about Juniper's code
> quality of the last few years, it's early yet.

Can't blame you. If you're new to Juniper, just coming from 
Cisco, feelings might be familiar. If you started with 
Juniper back in the days of Junos 5, 6, 7 and 8.4, as they 
say, "Those were the days".

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20110831/7a7c5fbc/attachment.pgp>