[j-nsp] Redundancy with MX

[joel jaeggli]

On 1/24/13 2:53 PM, Stephen Hon wrote:
> Ouch… I picked a single MX480 chassis design over a dual MX80 because of
> the unavailability of the MS-DPC card in the MX80.
yeah that's a consideration if you need an msdpc.
> 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.
dual RE and and NSR work and are useful... if you every have to replace 
a failing cb or RE and you do so without a hitch, you'll be pretty 
impressed. software upgrades even without ISSU are simpler and less 
impactful (and easier to recover from) than with only one RE
that said tradeoffs are tradeoffs and everyone has a slightly different 
point at which they compromise to meet their 
price/availability/functional needs.
> 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
>