[j-nsp] Moving onto EX2300

[Gustav Ulander]

I agree it not the best platform but im guessing there are atleast a couple of implementations out there that use it for one reason or the other.
Its not so much the feature itself as the hole “lets remove a feature and not replace it with something similar” that gets me. It shows a lack of commitment to ones customers.
To be honest perhaps Juniper shouldn’t have added VRF support on the 2200s at all  and just point to 3300s or SRX line.

//Gustav

Från: Pavel Lunin [mailto:plunin at gmail.com]
Skickat: den 20 september 2017 21:31
Till: Gustav Ulander <gustav.ulander at telecomputing.se>
Kopia: juniper-nsp <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>; Chris Morrow <morrowc at ops-netman.net>; William <willay at gmail.com>
Ämne: Re: [j-nsp] Moving onto EX2300

VRs on a basic enterprise access switch? You guys are really crazy.

"Gustav Ulander" <gustav.ulander at telecomputing.se<mailto:gustav.ulander at telecomputing.se>>:
Yea lets make the customers job harder partly by not supporting old features in the next incarnation of the platform (think VRF support) . Also lets not make them work the same so that the customer must relearn how to configure them.
Excellent way of actually pushing the customer to also look at other platforms...

//Gustav

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net>] För William
Skickat: den 20 september 2017 21:10
Till: Chris Morrow <morrowc at ops-netman.net<mailto:morrowc at ops-netman.net>>
Kopia: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Ämne: Re: [j-nsp] Moving onto EX2300

Thanks to all the replies so far!

Regarding a VC Licence -
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/ex-series-software-licenses-overview.html#jd0e59

Here are the features which require a EFL:

Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) IGMP (Internet Group Management Protocol) version 1 (IGMPv1), IGMPv2, and
IGMPv3
IPv6 routing protocols: Multicast Listener Discovery version 1 and 2 (MLD v1/v2), OSPFv3, PIM multicast, VRRPv6 Multicast Source Discovery protocol (MSDP) OSPF v2/v3 Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) dense mode, PIM source-specific mode, PIM sparse mode Real-time performance monitoring (RPM) RIPng (RIPng is for RIP IPv6) Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)

Which seems straight forward, but they have this bit at the end -
Note: You require a paper license to create an EX2300 Virtual Chassis. If you do not have a paper license, contact Customer Support.


And looking at the EX2300 packing list:

* Paper license for Virtual Chassis (only for the models EX2300-C-12T-VC, EX2300-C-12P-VC, EX2300-24T-VC, EX2300-24P-VC, EX2300-48T-VC, and
EX2300-48P-VC)

So it appears I may need to ensure i'm ordering EX2300-48P-VC if I want to stack 'em, I need to check the finer details with Juniper.

Cheers,

William


On 20 September 2017 at 19:18, Chris Morrow <morrowc at ops-netman.net<mailto:morrowc at ops-netman.net>> wrote:

> At Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:03:21 +0000,
> Raphael Maunier <raphael at zoreole.com<mailto:raphael at zoreole.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Not supported at all.
> >
> > According to a meeting last week, hardware limitation … EX2200 or
> > 3400 but no support of BGP, if bgp is needed EX3300 / 4300
> >
>
> I found the 3400's are painfully different from 3300/3200's.. with
> respect to vlans, trunks and access port assignment into said vlans..
> and actually getting traffic to traverse a trunk port to an access
> port.
>
> this coupled with what seems a requirement to enable an IRB interface
> to attach the management ip address to seems ... wonky.
>
> I don't find the docs online particularly enlightening either :) I
> have a 3300 config, it should 'just work' on a 3400.. I would have
> expected anyway.
>
> also, I don't think you can disable the VC functions in the
> 3400:
> @EX3400-0401> show chassis hardware
> Hardware inventory:
> Item             Version  Part number  Serial number     Description
> Chassis                                NX0217020007      EX3400-48T
> Pseudo CB 0
> Routing Engine 0          BUILTIN      BUILTIN           RE-EX3400-48T
> FPC 0            REV 14   650-059881   NX0217020007      EX3400-48T
>   CPU                     BUILTIN      BUILTIN           FPC CPU
>   PIC 0          REV 14   BUILTIN      BUILTIN           48x10/100/1000
> Base-T
>   PIC 1          REV 14   650-059881   NX0217020007      2x40G QSFP
>   PIC 2          REV 14   650-059881   NX0217020007      4x10G SFP/SFP+
>     Xcvr 0       REV 01   740-021309   FS40531D0014      SFP+-10G-LR
>     Xcvr 1       REV      740-021309   FS40531D0015      SFP+-10G-LR
> Power Supply 0   REV 05   640-060603   1EDV6486028       JPSU-150W-AC-AFO
> Power Supply 1   REV 05   640-060603   1EDV7021509       JPSU-150W-AC-AFO
> Fan Tray 0                                               Fan Module,
> Airflow Out (AFO)
> Fan Tray 1                                               Fan Module,
> Airflow Out (AFO)
>
> (port xe-0/2/0 and xe-0/2/1 are what I'd like to disable)
>
> @EX3400-0401> request virtual-chassis vc-port delete pic-slot 2 port 0
> error: interface not a vc-port
> @EX3400-0401> request virtual-chassis vc-port delete pic-slot 2 port 1
> error: interface not a vc-port
>
> of course, possibly they are not vc-ports, and are only acting like
> 3300 vc ports before I diable VC functionality :)
>
> -chris
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp