[j-nsp] Redundancy with MX

[james jones]

Are you looking to do active-standby or active-active mc-lag?

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Andre Christian <
andre.christian at o3bnetworks.com> wrote:

> Marcus - I am building about 10 PoPs and opted for the dual mx-80 design.
> Also looked at making the PoPs all layer 2 with a pair of exs.
>
> Plan to use MC-LAG where applicable.
>
> On Jan 21, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "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
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>