[j-nsp] SRX1400 opinions

[Andrew Jones]

Scratch that, branch SRX's only!


On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Andrew Jones <andrew at commitconfirmed.com>wrote:

> You will also need to follow this if adding a New/RMA SRX into a cluster
> which is 10.4 or older, should save you a few days of troubleshooting :)
>
> http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB23929
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Craig Askings <caskings at ionetworks.com.au
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> On 29 April 2013 05:49, James Howlett <jim.howlett at outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Paul,
>> >
>> > Thank You very much for the clarification. I will have only one ASBR. As
>> > for redundancy I'll go with a single 1400 unit and add a second in the
>> > future. Still, a single SRX1400 will be probably more stable then a
>> single
>> > J6350.
>> >
>>
>> I recently had a client that had a simliar plan to you of a single SRX1400
>> now to a HA pair later. No BGP though, when we setup the first SRX we
>> configured it as if it was part of a HA pair and left it running in a
>> Active/Lost state.
>>
>> Once we got the second SRX we followed the SRX HA Hardware replacement
>> procedure in the Juniper KB and it all went smoothly with no hiccups or
>> outages.
>>
>> http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB21134
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Craig Askings
>>
>> io Networks Pty Ltd.
>>
>>
>>
>> mobile: 0404 019365
>>
>> phone: 1300 1 2 4 8 16
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
>
>