We experienced phantom routing and arp issues as well in the 9 series, but 10.0s1.1 has been very stable.
-----Original Message----- From: Cyrill Malevanov [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:18 AM To: Dan Farrell Cc: Laurent HENRY; [email protected] Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX 4200 stability with BGP and OSPF redistribution ? 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
