[j-nsp] Clustering J-series across a switch

[Aaron Dewell]

IIRC, it's possible but not recommended due to the reliability issue of the switch in between.  In your situation, I'd probably give it a shot.

Definitely use different VLANs for control and fabric.

Aaron

On Apr 2, 2013, at 10:47 AM, Mike Williams wrote:
> Hey all,
> 
> So I've been reading the clustering docs, and they make it pretty clear that 
> the (at least) control link should connect the devices "back-to-back".
> I don't have the page to hand but there is an option to configure the control 
> link in the old way, using (a?) VLAN (4094 IIRC), otherwise new clusters will 
> use a special ether-type.
> 
> Now if Junos is going to use a new ether-type for control link communication 
> it's pretty certain the devices would have to be connected "back-to-back", but 
> if control link traffic is within a specific VLAN switching it shouldn't be a 
> problem, right? I'd q-in-q the traffic anyway.
> 
> The health of the control and fabric links is determined by heartbeats only, 
> not link state, so a switch wouldn't hurt that.
> 
> I accept that clustering across a switch isn't necessarily advisable, I'm just 
> wondering if it's fundamentally possible.
> Has anyone ever even tried to put a switch between a J-series, or SRX-series, 
> cluster?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Currently we've 2 J6350s on different floors of a building, with different 
> providers. Around that building we have a 10Gbps VC ring of EX3300s. We want 
> to cluster the J-series' but don't want the hassle or cost of running copper 
> between the providers (if that's even possible) when the VC is way more than 
> fast enough.
> Traffic levels are way way below 10Gbps, and it's highly unlikely they'll ever 
> get that high.
> 
> -- 
> Mike Williams
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp