[j-nsp] EX 4200 stability with BGP and OSPF redistribution ?

[Laurent HENRY]

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: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Laurent HENRY
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 6:29 AM
> To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> 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 juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp