Brian, Sorry about my cent, do not use active/active scenario.
My recomendation is active/backup Att. AŁexandre > Em 26 de jun de 2016, às 15:16, Brian Spade <[email protected]> escreveu: > > Hi, > > I'm trying to figure out the best way to setup an SRX cluster as > active/active. I have attached a diagram of the topology, but it's a > full mesh of links. The ISP links are local interfaces and the > southbound interfaces to the core routers are reth's. Core1 is HSRP > primary for all VLANs. FW1 is primary for RG1 and FW2 is primary for > RG2. The IGP is OSPF but have many VRFs that are connected to the FW > with transit VLANs to bind the sub-interface to virtual router & zone. > > The issue I have is Core2 has no active OSPF neighbors in this setup. > Therefore, if Core1 fails, there will be a control outage as Core2 > establishes OSPF adjacencies. > > So I'm thinking it might be better to remove the reth's and use local > interfaces on the FW/CORE links. This way I can have a full mesh of > OSPF adjacencies and no control plane loss when Core1 fails. > > Does anyone have thoughts on this or recommend the best way to achieve > this active/active full mesh setup? If there's good reason to not use > active/active, I'd welcome the feedback. > > Thanks. > /bs > _______________________________________________ > 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
