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

[Luca Salvatore]

Yep I'm aware, but why are my OSPF neighbours going down when one switch reboots?

Luca


-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Hanks [mailto:dhanks at juniper.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, 31 October 2012 2:42 PM
To: Luca Salvatore; Morgan McLean; EXT - bdale at comlinx.com.au
Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] How reliable is EX multichassis? 3300 and 8200 switches

GR is mutually exclusive with NSR.


You want NSR.

On 10/30/12 5:44 PM, "Luca Salvatore" <Luca at ninefold.com> wrote:

>I'm just playing around with this now since I have a few new EX 
>switches not in production just yet Have a pretty simple setup with two 
>EX4500 in VC connected to another two
>EX4500 in VC mode.  I'm running OSPF between them.
>
>I rebooted the master member while running a ping an it took around 40 
>seconds to come back up. I noticed that my OSPF  adjacency went down 
>and the delay was waiting for the OSPF neighbours to come back up.
>
>I  have: 
>nonstop-routing configured under routing options graceful-switchover 
>configured under chassis redundancy nonstop-bridging configured under 
>ethernet-switching-options
>
>Would graceful-restart be a better config than non-stop routing?
>
>Luca
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>[mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Morgan McLean
>Sent: Wednesday, 31 October 2012 11:00 AM
>To: Ben Dale
>Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [j-nsp] How reliable is EX multichassis? 3300 and 8200 
>switches
>
>Neither of these two options show up as a configurable flag:
>
>set routing-options nonstop-routing
>set ethernet-switching-options nonstop-bridging
>
>I'm running 11.4R2.14 on the ex3300-48t switches.
>
>Granted, right now the VC is broken so maybe it doesn't allow me to 
>configure it? I can head to the datacenter and upgrade these two 
>devices to recommended release and report back tomorrow as well.
>
>Morgan
>
>On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Ben Dale <bdale at comlinx.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Hi Morgan,
>>
>> On 31/10/2012, at 9:06 AM, Morgan McLean <wrx230 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Can anybody give me an idea regarding typical failover times if the
>> master
>> > in a two switch pair were to die? The quickest I've seen in my 
>> > testing
>> with
>> > EX3300's is 45 seconds, just for L2 forwarding to continue working, 
>> > no routing. All the ports drop link as well on the secondary switch 
>> > while things switch over. I can have my laptop connected to the 
>> > secondary
>> switch,
>> > passing traffic up an uplink on the secondary, and if the master 
>> > dies it creates a 45 second interruption.
>> >
>> > Normal?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, but add the following to your configuration:
>>
>> set virtual-chassis no-split-detection    (you may already have this)
>> set routing-options nonstop-routing
>> set ethernet-switching-options nonstop-bridging
>>
>> and try again.  In your testing, put a 3rd switch in place with LACP 
>> and one leg to each member.
>>
>> My testing (45/42xx) has shown L2 should be pretty much hitless under  
>>most circumstances (except if your STP topology needs to re-converge),  
>>and L3 should around the 1-4 seconds mark (for violent failures of 
>>master RE).
>>
>> The worst case scenario though is re-merging a split VC, which can 
>> take the best part of 45 seconds, so avoid split-brain scenarios 
>> whenever possible with redundant VCP/VCPe or schedule their repair 
>> during planned outage windows.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Morgan
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Giuliano Medalha <
>> giuliano at wztech.com.br>wrote:
>> >
>> >> Robert,
>> >>
>> >> It was released by juniper one or two weeks ago I think.
>> >>
>> >> Take a look:
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/mx2
>> 0
>> 00/
>> >>
>> >> MX2010
>> >> MX2020
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/mx2
>> 0
>> 00/#specifications
>> >>
>> >> But I really don't know if it will support virtual chassis without
>>JCS.
>> >>
>> >> Att,
>> >>
>> >> Giuliano
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Robert Hass <robhass at gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Giuliano Medalha 
>> >>> <giuliano at wztech.com.br> wrote:
>> >>>> Considering the MX family (240, 480 and 960 with TRIO 3D) and 
>> >>>> the new
>> >>> MX-L
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi
>> >>> What is new MX-L - can you write a little mort ? MX80 successor ?
>> >>>
>> >>> Rob
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net 
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>