first release candidate for VyOS 1.2 LTS in 1.2
Details
Dec 30 2024
I apologize if this is the incorrect place. Running 1.5-rolling-202412160007 in a qemu/kvm, and it appears to be missing the qemu guest agent ( qemu-guest-agent.service -> /usr/sbin/qemu-ga ).
Oct 28 2024
Oct 14 2024
Feb 15 2024
Sep 29 2021
Jul 29 2021
Jun 20 2021
Apr 13 2021
Mar 14 2021
Feb 25 2021
Oct 11 2020
Aug 3 2020
Jul 30 2020
Jul 26 2020
May 13 2020
Apr 23 2020
I'm still seeing this in VyOS 1.3-rolling-202004170117
Mar 16 2020
Mar 3 2020
Jan 16 2020
We took other steps that allows us to take the image back to a manageable size, and this task lost its immediate relevance.
Dec 24 2019
This is confusing. While NTP used to work (listen on all interfaces) without any listen-address set, now it doesn't. This means any old config without listen-address set will now have a non-working NTP without any warning. There was no migration script to migrate the old behavior to the new. ntp should have a mandatory listen-address if this new behavior is kept.
Dec 12 2019
Do you know what the outcome of this old task was?
Nov 13 2019
Nov 10 2019
While "interface ignore wildcard" configured, we got:
ntpq -c lpeer remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter ============================================================================== 10.255.0.1 .INIT. 16 u - 64 0 0.000 0.000 0.000
show system ntp
allow-clients {
address 192.168.100.0/24
}
server 10.255.0.1 {
prefer
}Oct 28 2019
Oct 27 2019
Oct 22 2019
Sep 16 2019
You are absolutely right. Was a stressful morning sorting this out, thanks for the response.
Yes definitely just ran into this myself. I think i had the opposite problem of OP. I have only ipsec VTI on the router, but whenever a reset vpn ipsec-peer command was run, the peer IP was being added as default route for table 220. Furthermore, this was being respected as the default route for the system (I'm not sure how route priority works with tables, but i'm guessing table 220 has preference over table main?)
Sep 2 2019
Aug 26 2019
Aug 21 2019
Aug 19 2019
Aug 18 2019
@dmbaturin ok, will address that in the next rewrite
@alkersan Looks good, thanks!
Aug 17 2019
Aug 16 2019
Jul 21 2019
Jun 16 2019
Jun 1 2019
@dmbaturin is there any reason the IPv6 peer-group is under address-family ipv6-unicast and the IPv4 peer-group is not? Seems this one was missed during migration?
May 14 2019
@syncer @dmbaturin - I'm experiencing this on upgrade from 1.1.8 to 1.2.1, is this expected behaviour that you have to chown it?