[j-nsp] MC-LAG reliability

Alberto Santos albertofsantos at gmail.com
Thu Dec 22 11:29:39 EST 2016


last time a colleague checked the PR list, VC had more issues than MC LAG.
How your L2 setup looks like? Do you configure STP on your L2 network ?
which version? make sure the STP version you have today is officially
supported by juniper when you implement it.

if you have any routing protocol such as eBGP or OSPF runnung through these
switches, you should make sure you test before you convert it to a MC LAG

With juniper pyez, there is no excuse to keep this in a VC setup, you
should really consider MC LAG :), another good advantage that you get is
ISSU instead of NSSU :D

cheers and merry xmas

Alberto Santos CCIE #26648
*"...Fix your DNS, make it dual-stack, take your mail server and make it
dual-stack, take your web server and make it dual-stack..." by Randy
Bush/RIPE IPv6*

On 22 December 2016 at 15:15, Vincent Bernat <bernat at luffy.cx> wrote:

> Hey!
> How reliable should MC-LAG be considered on EX and QFX series (in a pure
> L2 setup)?
> I had a few bad experiences with virtual chassis where a hiccup usually
> translates to both switches becoming unavailable. This is pretty rare of
> course. MC-LAG would avoid those coordinated faults but is it otherwise
> as reliable as virtual chassis?
> Thanks!
> --
> Many pages make a thick book, except for pocket Bibles which are on very
> very thin paper.
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

More information about the juniper-nsp mailing list