[j-nsp] 10.0 or 10.4?

[Nathan Sipes]

Funny My SE assures me that they have made significant changes to the way
that the JUNOS code is being developed. Which will result in me finally
after four years getting a stable code image. 10.4 is supposed to fix all my
issues with the R3 release.

Any one taking odds on this?



On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Chris Morrow <morrowc at ops-netman.net>wrote:

>
>
> On 03/15/11 13:57, Steve Feldman wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> We recently spent a fair bit of time trying to decide between 10.3R3 and
> >> 10.4R2 for a lot of MX960 and EX8200 upgrades, and came to the
> >> conclusion that 10.4R2 was significantly buggier.
> >
> > What sorts of bugs did you see in 10.4R2?
> >
> > JTAC is recommending 10.4R2 on our EX8200s to fix a bug (PR581625 in
> > 10.1R4) where some of our firewall filter rules were being silently
> > ignored.
>
> ex + firewall ... 'silently ignored' is the norm no? ;(
>
> here's a fav of mine. Loopback filters drop traceroute THROUGH the
> device (unless you permit all traceroute of course) because, you know..
> separating the 'control plane' traffic from the 'data plane' traffic is
> something we all figured out 10 years ago. :(
>
> (to be fair, this 'bug' is fixed in 11.X... 'please load this daily code
> image on your production network, kthxbi!')
>
> -grumpy-in-north-america
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>