[j-nsp] MC-LAG reliability

[Aaron]

Shhhhhhhh .... if there are problems with VC , I don't want my EX4550's to hear about it.... LOL  ....They've been behaving just fine for so long I forgot they were there.

{master:1}
root at sabn-dcvc-4550> show system uptime | grep "days|fpc"
fpc0:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7:13PM  up 1285 days,  6:57, 0 users, load averages: 0.16, 0.13, 0.09
fpc1:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7:13PM  up 1285 days,  6:57, 2 users, load averages: 0.18, 0.15, 0.13

{master:1}
root at sabn-dcvc-4550>



{master:1}
root at stlr-dcvc-4550> show system uptime | grep "days|fpc"
fpc0:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7:16PM  up 1289 days,  5:27, 0 users, load averages: 0.35, 0.21, 0.17
fpc1:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7:16PM  up 1289 days,  5:48, 1 user, load averages: 0.10, 0.10, 0.09

{master:1}


- Aaron


-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Vincent Bernat
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 2:29 PM
To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MC-LAG reliability

Hey!

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

> Hey,
>
> 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 
> unfortunately).
>
> --
> Raphael Mazelier
>
> On 22/12/2016 15:15, Vincent Bernat 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!
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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