[j-nsp] Redundancy with MX

[OBrien, Will]

I currellty use 480s with MS-DPCs. Lately I've been considering making a VC from them in order to achieve redundancy on the MS-DPC. (For CGNAT in my case)

The real question is what are you implementing on the MS-DPC? That adds some perspective on the deployment needs.


On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:08 PM, james jones wrote:

> 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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp