[j-nsp] Redundancy with MX

[Gavin Henry]

Any constraints? Power? Bandwidth? What's the driver/function?

Thanks. 

--
Kind Regards,

Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.

T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
E ghenry at suretec.co.uk

Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).

http://www.suretecsystems.com/

Suretec Systems is a limited company registered in Scotland. Registered
number: SC258005. Registered office: 24 Cormack Park, Rothienorman, Inverurie,
Aberdeenshire, AB51 8GL.

Subject to disclaimer at http://www.suretecgroup.com/disclaimer.html

Do you know we have our own VoIP provider called SureVoIP? See http://www.surevoip.co.uk

On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:40, Markus H <hauschild.markus at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I wonder what kind of redundancy the community would prefer for
> small-medium sized PoPs.
> This is what I have come up with so far:
> 
> a) 2xMX80
> Pro: Two seperate devices so less prone to config errors and chassis failure
> Con: Using redundant uplinks is more complicated (LB would need to be
> done via routing protocol)
> 
> b) 1xMX240/480 with redundant SCB and RE
> Pro: Easier to use redundant uplinks (LACP)
> Con: Config error as well as chassis failure brings the whole PoP down
> 
> Any further arguments? Best practices? What did you deploy?
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Markus
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp