[j-nsp] Redundancy with MX

[Caillin Bathern]

There are some per-logical-system processes but there are also some that
are chassis wide.  Logical systems also do not support some features,
including I believe most MS-DPC functions, FA-LSPs (go figure) and some
others.  You will also always have a single cos and chassis process for
all logical systems so no real help for a crash there.  Also,
maintenance/provisioning tools will almost never work properly with
logical systems for some reason or another so I would recommend keeping
logical systems limited to the lab for testing larger scenarios on less
equipment.. 

Cheers,
Caillin

-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Hon
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 9:53 AM
To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Redundancy with MX

Ouch... I picked a single MX480 chassis design over a dual MX80 because
of the unavailability of the MS-DPC card in the MX80.

We're very new to Juniper here with close to no practical experience.
Nonetheless, we're migrating away from Brocade NetIron MLX to the MX and
we figured that dual RE and SCB would helpful relative to ISSU and NSR
but I guess the general consensus is that it's preferable to have
separate routers over redundant RE's.

I'm wondering though, would dividing some of the routing duties into
logical systems help to protect from a massive system-wide problem? From
what I understand the logical systems spin up their own set of processes
and have their own configuration so it would seem that there could be
some level of protection.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
--
Message  protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and
content filtering.http://www.mailguard.com.au/mg