[j-nsp] Redundancy with MX

[Saku Ytti]

On (2013-01-21 21:40 +0100), Markus H wrote:

> I wonder what kind of redundancy the community would prefer for
> small-medium sized PoPs.
> 
> a) 2xMX80
> b) 1xMX240/480 with redundant SCB and RE

a) no question. As long as you can live with modest RE performance of MX80.
Routing separated two units always better than stateful single unit.

Frankly, I'm not sure if dual RE even delivers better MTBF, since it does
expose you to new issues, even outside HW failures. It probably does
deliver you better MTTR though.


jabbering:
I've been installing 8 MX960 in last week and this week, 5/8 of them
suffered from some type of FW misprogram. They were delivered with export
software, so field-tech pushed template config, disabled lo0 filter and
enabled telnet, to allow remote management.
After remotely over telnet upgrading RE (no ISSU) and swapping or reloading
master RE, I found that RE filter was again enabled, even though it was not
seen in config I could observe my telnet packets hitting discard term
couter of filter which wasn't on any interface.
Fix was 'commit full'. I've seen other issues too, affecting transit
traffic too, post-upgrade.

I've not yet lost RE due to HW failure though.
-- 
  ++ytti