maintenance:releases:7.0.4_20180612
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
maintenance:releases:7.0.4_20180612 [2019/12/23 15:49] – yspeerte | maintenance:releases:7.0.4_20180612 [2024/07/03 12:31] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | {{indexmenu_n> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== NetYCE 7.0.4 Build_20180612 ===== | ||
+ | ===== Release notes ===== | ||
+ | Date: 2018-06-12 | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | <WRAP widths 60% box safety> | ||
+ | ==== Enhancement ==== | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Template usage === | ||
+ | <WRAP indent> | ||
+ | The ' | ||
+ | selections involving Vendor-types. With the introduction of sub- and port-templates per | ||
+ | Vendor-type, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Locating the nodes using such a multivendor template with this tool would properly report | ||
+ | the nodes referencing it, but it did not permit for distinguishing between the vendors. | ||
+ | It also could not detect if a multivendor template was missing for a spefic vendor. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Now an additional selection and filter function for the Vendor-type is added to the tool, | ||
+ | allowing for tracing templates for specific vendors. | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | === ' | ||
+ | <WRAP indent> | ||
+ | For some changes it is desirable or even a must NOT to save the configuration on change completion. | ||
+ | To facilitate these situations the scenario command ' | ||
+ | option to enavle the ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | When setting this -q flag, the NetYCE vendor modules will execute the commands as usual, but will | ||
+ | skip the configuration save, backup and nccm submission at the start AND at the end of the change. | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | <WRAP widths 60% box safety> | ||
+ | ==== Fix ==== | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Redundancy check === | ||
+ | <WRAP indent> | ||
+ | It was noted that during the execution of a scenario where the availablility of the redundant | ||
+ | switch was tested, an incorrect managment ip-address was used. | ||
+ | |||
+ | It turned out that the scenario ' | ||
+ | a device using a slightly different set of citeria. The various front-end and back-end software | ||
+ | modules involving management-addresses were reviewed and now all use the same set of criteria. | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||