[j-nsp] NSR+GRES vs Graceful restart

[Mark Tinka]

On Thursday, February 24, 2011 02:36:42 am Jeff Richmond 
wrote:

> Like all things, it is dependent on hardware, code
> version, voodoo, etc. We have been running NSR for a
> couple years now on MXs without too many issues. Biggest
> issue was BGP address families that were not yet
> supported for NSR, so you would see down BGP sessions
> and RPD spikes on the backup RE. Other than that it has
> been very solid.

We've been happy with Graceful Restart + GRES on JUNOS, 
along with Graceful Restart on our IOS, IOS XR and IOS XE 
platforms.

In the past, support for NSR in various protocols has been 
behind that of Graceful Restart, but I see this has improved 
a great deal in the last 20 or so months 

Our deployment is, by and large, all Graceful Restart 
between both Cisco and Juniper systems. It's been stable and 
doesn't bring any surprises with it.

We still do like the theory (and practicality) of NSR, 
however. Not having to involve the rest of the network in 
the status of a single node is a great way to lower overhead 
when bad things are happening to the network. The reasons we 
haven't yet gone with it are historical, but we're seriously 
looking to reconsider it after at least another 2 years from 
now.

On ISSU, given the various levels of support and "ability" 
that both Cisco and Juniper can assure, we still generally 
don't use it (we focus on node/link redundancy and the old 
school planning re: code upgrades, e.t.c.). But, like 
everything else, we're keeping a very close eye on it, 
albeit we're still far from being convinced.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20110226/50eb990f/attachment.pgp>