You are correct - RG0 will always be active/passive. A full control plane failover will always be painful.
SRX active/active is more about the interfaces in use. You can arrange for half of your traffic to prefer FW1 vs. FW2 and achieve active/active in that way so you’ll take less of a hit when an interface fails (or a neighbor device goes down). So that’s really what you are protecting against, which seems like you’ve done that. > On Jun 26, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Brian Spade <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
