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

[Morgan McLean]

Obviously the external RE has its benefits, but I still need two RE per chassis to make use of it?

Morgan

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 26, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net> wrote:

> 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)