[j-nsp] Redundant RE setup useful?

[Mark Tinka]

On Monday, June 23, 2014 11:36:21 AM Paul S. wrote:

> I haven't seen the REs die due to any direct faults
> either, ever.
> 
> However, they do exhibit issues with fw corruption and
> the like on abrupt power loss, and co.
> 
> In my opinion, you do not get redundant REs for it to be
> immediately useful, you keep them for when s* really
> hits the fan.
> 
> Similar analogy to A+B power / network.

I've gone single control plane on Layer 2-only core 
switches. Use-cases are simple enough for that.

If a box is doing IP, it needs dual control planes if the 
hardware supports it, IMHO.

Until recently, I ran single RP's on Cisco ASR1006's which 
did NAT44/NAT64, as redundant RP's created split-brain 
scenarios prior to support for Intra- and Inter-Chassis 
Stateful redundancy. That's about the only corner case I can 
think of where you don't want a redundant control plane on a 
capable IP box.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20140623/524449ab/attachment.sig>