[Prev] [Next]
Previous Software Releases
Release 4.1R3
The following issues have been resolved since JUNOS Release 4.1R2. The identifier following the description is the tracking number in our bug database.
Platform and Forwarding
- When converting interfaces from point-to-point to multipoint and back again, the NTP process (xntpd) displayed the error message "SIOCGIFBRDADDR fails." The workaround was to restart xntpd. [PR/783]
- If you configured CCC connections on an M160 router and then took an SFM offline and back online again, the CCC connections belonging to that SFM contained incorrect next hops, preventing the packets belonging to the affected CCC connections from reaching their destination. [PR/10464]
User Interface and Configuration
- NTP broadcast could be configured on only one address and thus on only one interface. There was no workaround. [PR/10382]
Interfaces and Chassis
- When you unconfigured loopback mode on a SONET/SDH interface, the show interface command showed that the link flags still showed "loop detected". To clear the link flags, you had to take the PIC offline and bring it online again. [PR/9032]
- If an FPC containing the active circuit for APS failed or was removed, APS did not switch to the other circuit. There was no workaround for this problem. [PR/10099]
- Removing the master and only SSB in an M20 router without pressing the offline button might have caused the subsequently inserted SSB to become active even though the other SSB was the master and this SSB was the backup. [PR/10253]
- When firewall filter logging was enabled, or when firewall counters were added to a filter configuration and the logs were polled or the counters were polled, packet buffer leaks occurred. [PR/10394]
- APS did not support the exercise request. If an exercise request was received, the circuit might have been protection switched. There was no workaround. [PR/10439]
- Pressing the FPC online button multiple times could have caused multiple connection timeout requests to be queued and then subsequently overwritten. When the timers timed out, the FPC mistakenly was placed into diagnostic mode. [PR/10501]
General Routing
- The command show route prefix all did not show a hidden route if it was the longest match for the prefix. [PR/10549]
Routing Protocols
- When the system received a BGP update containing new next-hop information for a prefix, and the next hop used for forwarding purposes remained unchanged, the system might have failed to update the next hop that was being advertised by BGP. [PR/8815]
- Intra-area routes learned over virtual links in the backbone area might not have been updated to the inet.0 routing table and hence in the forwarding table. The workaround was to clear the OSPF database using the clear ospf database command. [PR/10306]
MPLS Applications
- If you configured a strict hop along an LSP, the CSPF load-balancing algorithm (least fill, most fill, and random) did not function properly. [PR/10170]
- LDP might have closed sessions randomly depending on the protocol traffic load at that point in time. There was no workaround. [PR/10214]
- If you configured the no-cspf statement and multiple, equal-cost paths toward the egress router existed, an LSP might have blackholed traffic. [PR/10236]
Release 4.1R2
The following issues have been resolved since JUNOS Release 4.1R1. The identifier following the description is the tracking number in our bug database.
Platform and Forwarding
- In rare cases, a write to the rotating media or flash failed and the system might have retried the write forever, causing the writing process to stop, instead of detecting the write error. [PR/9361]
- On an M160 router, in rare cases, the SFM might have failed to come online and the Routing Engine might not have received the resynchronize message from the SFM, causing the Routing Engine to never mark the SFM as online. [PR/9822]
Interfaces and Chassis
- If an OC-192 PIC had been up continuously for 49 days, ADC timeout messages were displayed. These messages, and this condition, did not affect proper operation of the board. [PR/10046]
- When the chassis was not over the temperature limit, the system intermittently generated an alarm about the temperature of the chassis being over the shutdown limit and cleared the alarm 5 seconds later. [PR/8949]
- When APS was configured on SDH interfaces, if the working router detected signal failure, the protect router did not respond appropriately. There was no workaround. [PR/9413]
- The show interface at-x/x/x switch-id command displayed extraneous characters. [PR/9425]
- If the sum of the configured priority costs for the VRRP-tracked interfaces exceeded the VRRP group's priority, the VRRP process might have dumped core. This misconfiguration is now detected when you commit configuration changes. [PR/9806]
- The show chassis routing-engine command incorrectly displayed the value of the temperature probe on the Routing Engine. [PR/9837]
General Routing
- When interfaces disappeared and reappeared while the routing protocols process (rpd) was experiencing heavy load, rpd never noticed that the interfaces disappeared and reappeared. This might have led to incorrect next hops. [PR/9255]
- In an AS-path regular expression, the plus (+) operator might not have worked correctly if it appeared in the middle of the expression. [PR/9534]
- When an ATM interface was configured the same way as another interface in the router that was disabled, the ATM interface might have appeared to be up but did not transmit locally generated packets. [PR/9659]
- If you issued the show route community community-id command simultaneously in two different sessions, the routing subsystem might have restarted. The workaround was to not issue this command in two sessions at the same time. [PR/9745]
- The show route <prefix> hidden command did not show the hidden route that was the longest match for the prefix. [PR/9871]
Routing Protocols
MPLS Applications
- CSPF might have computed a valid path that appeared to contain loops, causing RSVP not to establish the path. [PR/6335]
- When two IS-IS routers shared the same router ID (which is a configuration error), the TED database might have asserted and the routing protocol process (rpd) might have dumped core. [PR/9737]
- LDP did not work correctly if the neighbor negotiated a maximum PDU size of less than 2085 bytes. [PR/9954]
- LDP placed parts of messages in the wrong order. Some other vendors' implementations might have been confused by this. There was no workaround. [PR/9985]
[Prev] [Next]