On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Pavel Lunin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Moreover SRX3/5k is quite a different story. ScreenOS products anyway can > not compete against them. > Are you speaking from experience? Because my old ISG1000 firewalls are superior than my SRX3400 firewalls. Not only do they support IPv6 in "route" mode, they support it in flow-based packet filtering mode. The SRX3400s do not support IPv6 at all. ISG1000s on ScreenOS, on the other hand, support IPv6 no problem. > Sorry, I didn't mean to kindle a holy war :) Just my opinion. Well, maybe > not too humble. > > I have an SSG320, 2x ISG1000s and 4x SRX3400s. >> > > […] > > >> The routing >> performance of the SRX, ie, taking a full route table via BGP, is >> horrendous. >> >> > Interesting. Did you try to load full BGP into SRX3k? Could you please > shere the experience. Any issues or something? > Yes, that is precisely the problem. 2x SRX3400s in chassis cluster mode, receiving full route table from 2 providers, it takes approximately 5 minutes for the route process to finish injecting routes in to the kernel routing table. The overall process of a chassis cluster failover, when BGP is enabled, is extremely slow. We're talking minutes of downtime. Chassis cluster failover when upstream is configured via static route is < 10 seconds. It's still slower than the ScreenOS failover. Scott _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
