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

[Doug Hanks]

Make sure the platform + software + configuration supports GRES + NSR +
NSB and you're good to go.


On 10/30/12 8:58 PM, "Luca Salvatore" <Luca at ninefold.com> wrote:

>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
>>
>
>
>