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

[Dan Farrell]

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:cm at n-home.ru] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:18 AM
To: Dan Farrell
Cc: Laurent HENRY; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
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:Laurent.Henry at ehess.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 5:23 AM
> To: Dan Farrell
> Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> 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: 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
>>      
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>