[j-nsp] How reliable is EX multichassis? 3300 and 8200 switches

[Richard A Steenbergen]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:44:27PM -0200, Giuliano Medalha wrote:
> Morgan,
> 
> I really dont know why JUNIPER did this kind of crazy environment with 
> EX8200.
> 
> Considering the MX family (240, 480 and 960 with TRIO 3D) and the new 
> MX-L I think you do not need the external routing engines for virtual 
> chassis.

An external routing engine is actually a really good idea, you should 
ask them to do it more, not less. There is absolutely no reason the RE 
needs to be in the chassis, all it does it drive up the cost and slow 
down upgrade cycles. When was the last time you saw a several year old 
off the shelf PC that cost $32k?

In the EX's case, the EX8200 is vastly underprovisioned on the stock RE 
(one of the worst design decisions of all times), so it REALLY benefits 
from an external RE. I never actually tried it in production though, so 
no comments about the reliability (IMHO multi-chassis boxes are for 
people who can't figure out routing protocols, I'd personally rather 
have two independant control-planes instead).

I'm still sad that I couldn't get Juniper to bless the XRE200 as an 
external route reflector, since it's an infinitely more useful form 
factor than a JCS, but alas lack of common sense knows no bounds. :)

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)