Firmware upgrade page still a mess regarding upgrade options

[cmr]

As below, how can 17.10.2 be up to date, yet 17.10.4 have an upgrade available.  Both are the latest stable releases.  Yes, I know 18.x exists, but surely either both should show upgrade available, or it should be the other way round?

Hopefully some logic can be applied to this page.  On a related note, beta or release candidate firmwares often change to GA when deprecated, which can somewhat confuse matters, though the above are both showing correctly 😎

[Ryan_Miles · Accepted solution]

I believe it's due to the new-ish concept of patches. 17.10.4 is a patch in the 17.10.x train. I believe it only shows when you have networks running 17.10.2. There was no .3 to my knowledge.

I've seen the same behavior on MR in recent months as it's also adopted the firmware patch logic. I agree it's not as intuitive as maybe it could be.

Regardless, being on the latest stable whatever that is for your given network is what I'd aim for unless other factors push you to an older or newer RC/beta.

[Brash]

I also find the Meraki firmware a bit confusing.

Not 100% the same but i have some sits still running 16.16 MX firmware train.

They all got scheduled automatic updates to try to take them to 17.10.

I'm not necessarily against upgrading the major firmware version but I haven't seen anywhere that 16.16 is officially EOL, especially given a patch was deployed for it a few weeks ago.

[BlakeRichardson]

My problem is one of my Org's upgrade page shows that I have an update for an MX on a network that no longer has an MX on it. The only way to resolve it is seperate the networks and then recombine them.  

[MK2]

Same here. Agree that the update section needs an update