R81.20 New Recommended Jumbo - Take #98

[gadt]

Hi All

R81.20 Jumbo HF Take #98 is now our Recommended Jumbo take and is available for download to all via CPUSE (as recommended) and via Jumbo documentation R81.20 

Release Highlight:

•        Add the release highlights

A full list of resolved issues can be found in the Jumbo documentation R81.20 

Note:

• Central Deployment allows you to perform a batch deployment of Hotfixes on your Security Gateways and clusters from SmartConsole!! For more information, see sk168597.
• With Blink images, you can upgrade your environment to the required Major version including its recommended Jumbo hotfix in one Step, using a single image file.

You can install Blink images using CPUSE – More details can be found in sk120193

Thanks,

Release Operations Group

[the_rock]

Really good news, since I found the lab more responsive when pushing policy after installing that take.

Andy

[Alex-]

9100 appliance that was up for months on Take 89 crashed a few hours after installing Take 98.

/var/log/crash produced a vmcore and some files, will open a ticket.

Failover happened but it wasn't smooth.

Just sharing this as FYI, can't say yet if it's related to the Take.

[Chris_Atkinson]

@Alex- was it a usim core or something else?

[Alex-]

@Chris_Atkinson There's a VMCORE Zero64. SR is open.

[Chris_Atkinson]

@Alex- Could you please share the SR number via DM

[Alex-]

@Chris_Atkinson Will do. We also had an IKE core dump yesterday, added to the SR.

[Arskazv]

Just installed R81.20 JHF T98, and it has similar issues like in sk183147

"Remote Access VPN users repeatedly lose connection to resources behind gateway"

ike core dumps etc...

(Created TAC case as well)

[the_rock]

Hey @Arskazv 

I would definitely stick for take 92, or wait till next jumbo.

Andy

[Tobias_Moritz]

I just want to add another problem with T98: Custom IOC feeds which contain IPv6 adresses causes gateway crashes during loading addresses in SecureXL. Found somewhere in production (needed to rollback jumbo), reproducable in our lab. Support case is open. Gateways do not crash with T84 or older with same feed.

Just sharing this as FYI.

[freeman91]

What is your expirience after two and a half month with this recommended JHF?
problems that are fixed in T99 are not the minor one, and T99 is not recommended.
Are you guys suggest to T99 to become recommended or? If yes, for how long can we expect that it will happend?
I have a cluster of two gw, and my concern is about compatibility when upgrading one member at the time, then second one. Am I going to face some problem because difference in version (old T53 and new T98) when I upgrade one member.

[Henrik_Noerr1]

We hit an issue that caused some stir that are present in t92 - t98 if I remember correctly from the SR.

When creating a new interface (this was on VSX) - packets *may* be dropped silently. Confirmed with zdebug + drop.

This took us quite some time to find and some calls I would like to have avoided during a large migration of systems where a new interfaces was needed 😞

Should be fixed in t99 - not tested - for now we fixed it by disabling securexl.

Regards,

Henrik

[the_rock]

@freeman91 I would say if you are going to do what you described, dont leave updated one for too long without doing the other one, maybe one day max, in my honest opinion.

Text me if you need help.

Srecno : - )

Andy

[Magnus-Holmberg]

Anyone experience slow HTTP connections on this release?

[Chris_Atkinson]

@Magnus-Holmberg Not specifically. Possibly config dependent but some others have noted T99 is generally improved for them.

[Magnus-Holmberg]

@Chris_Atkinson no diff on HFA99, same issue with ~5second delay on HTTP traffic. all other seams to work correctly.