We have a lot of routing problems on EX4200 VC's. Standalone EX works
fine, but routing on high loads using VC - is a pain.
Some routing loss, packets loss etc.
Cyrill
On 22.06.2010 17:59, Dan Farrell wrote:
Not in -this- version 10.0S1.1 . I sing the praises of the EX series because
it fits our needs like a glove and Cisco wants more money for less product. But
just 6 months ago it was a little rough because the platform, IMHO, was
'growing up' in the 9.X series. There were some definite operational problems
we had on 9. With 10, aside from great stability, one noticeable difference is
interface groups- in our environment (virtualization hosting) this has made
configuring the devices significantly easier.
At this point I can't fault them, and we are using 4200 VC stacks to slowly
expand our core routing/switching, one chassis at a time (getting ready to add
our first third chassis to a stacked core). We may eventually convert to the
8208 platform there, but right now the 4200's price point is so attractive it's
hard not to continue in this direction.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Laurent HENRY [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 5:23 AM
To: Dan Farrell
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX 4200 stability with BGP and OSPF redistribution ?
Thank you !
No weird bugs encountered ?
Le Monday 21 Ju4ne 2010 23:25:13 Dan Farrell, vous avez écrit :
We leverage the EX3200 and 4200's extensively in our network, for
edge, core, and access.
As far as edge (ISP connectivity) we use EX3200's in pairs- each
EX3200 has a separate peer session to each upstream provider,
providing redundancy
(high-availability) without merging the two units as one logical unit.
This makes zero-downtime maintenance easier at your edge, as upgrading
a stacked chassis involves rebooting all the devices at once. And
they're cheaper than their 4200 counterparts.
I'm elated at the 4200's performance in our core- I think what may be
of use to you is a comparison to equivalent Cisco gear- in this light
we just replaced a two-chassis 3750G stack with a two-chassis EX4200
stack (we stack them to take advantage of port densities with
staggered growth in the core), and we are glad we did so.
The EX series allows 1000 RVI's and 4k VLANS per virtual chassis- the
Catalyst 3xxx series only actually supports 8 RVI's, and they don't
publish this (you will find it when configuring the profile of the
device). This created a problem with 10 OSPF interfaces (and 15 other
non-OPSF
interfaces) on the Cisco. Upon a link-state change on any of the
Cisco's OSPF-configured interfaces, the CPU would crank up to 100% and
the stacked device throughput was ground to a crawl (80%+ traffic
loss). Changing the configuration in the OSPF subsection, elimination
of the problem interface (flapping or not) from the configuration, or
a complete reboot would solve the problem- none of which are
attractive solutions to a problem we shouldn't have been having in the first
place.
Compare this to a two-chassis EX4200-48T stack we have in another part
of the network- 13 OSPF interfaces and ~845 other non-OSPF RVI's , and
the stacked device hasn't given us any grief. They cost us 1/3 less
than the Cisco solution, and doubled the port density (the Ciscos had
24 and the Junipers we got have 48 ports).
There are platform limitations, like memory, which may cause you to be
a little more exotic on BGP route selection, but the Catalyst 3750G's
have even less memory as I recall. Overall they have been extremely
good for our network, and have caused me to swear off Cisco completely.
Hope this provides some insight.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Laurent
HENRY
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 6:29 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [j-nsp] EX 4200 stability with BGP and OSPF redistribution ?
Hi all,
I am thinking about using two EX 4200 as redondant border
routers of my main Internet link.
In this design, I would then need to use BGP with my ISP and OSPF for
inside route redistribution.
Reading the archive, and on my own experience with the product too, i
am looking for feedbacks about stability of this solution with EX.
In archives i understood there could have been some huge stability
problems, am i right ?
Could things be different with 10.1 JunOS release ?
Does anyone actually use these features actively with this platform ?
Regards
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
