Same here. Clearly the new RE will help (how good is still in evaluation) in software issues but failing hardware is not covered so there is still the need for a dual RE setup.
-- Sebastian Becker [email protected] > Am 11.11.2016 um 07:44 schrieb Mark Tinka <[email protected]>: > > > > > On 11/Nov/16 00:44, Clarke Morledge wrote: > > >> >> Right now, we do employ redundant routing engines (1300s and 1800s), >> but mostly with ISSU in mind. The failure rate for routing engines, >> even with the older hard disk models, has been rather low, in our >> experience. So, the primary benefit has been to provide support for >> "hitless" upgrades via ISSU. > > We've had at least 3 RE's fail every year on different platforms, for > various reasons. That is too high for us. > > I think the ability to VM's is great, especially because you can > cut-over upgrades much more quickly, and you can have different versions > of Junos doing different things on the same box, e.g., one VM doing > Business services on 2 line cards, another VM doing Subscriber > Management on 2 other line cards, e.t.c. > > But I don't think it negates the need for dual RE's. RE's are still > fragile, and things happen. > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > 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
