[j-nsp] MC-LAG reliability
bernat at luffy.cx
Thu Dec 22 15:28:43 EST 2016
I also think that the VC is quite reliable. However, by design, it is a
bit fragile. rpd can die and take the whole VC down. I also remember
quite a few problems with upgrades but this is quite ancient, so maybe
this doesn't apply any more.
I didn't test much, but even on the EX3300 with 15.5, you seem to have
MC-LAG support (and no warnings from the CLI when using it). Dunno if
this is recent or not.
Don't just echo the code with comments - make every comment count.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
――――――― Original Message ―――――――
From: Raphael Mazelier <raph at futomaki.net>
Sent: 22 décembre 2016 18:32 +0100
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MC-LAG reliability
To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> My experience with VirtualChassis with a lot of them (you know where)
> is globally positive. In fact I dot not remember when a VC completly
> fail. This is not a perfect techno but it do the job for very low cost
> of setup.
> On EX series you have no choice, afaik MC-LAG is not supported (unless
> on highend series).
> On QFX I would hesitate. My tests are OK.
> Running independent switches is more reliable indeed, but even with
> automation tool the cost of setup/maintenance is bit higher. (and in
> my actual work I have just no time to spend with network config
> Raphael Mazelier
> On 22/12/2016 15:15, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>> 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?
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
More information about the juniper-nsp