Thank you ! No weird bugs encountered ?
Le Monday 21 Ju4ne 2010 23:25:13 Dan Farrell, vous avez écrit : > We leverage the EX3200 and 4200's extensively in our network, for edge, > core, and access. > > As far as edge (ISP connectivity) we use EX3200's in pairs- each EX3200 has > a separate peer session to each upstream provider, providing redundancy > (high-availability) without merging the two units as one logical unit. This > makes zero-downtime maintenance easier at your edge, as upgrading a stacked > chassis involves rebooting all the devices at once. And they're cheaper > than their 4200 counterparts. > > I'm elated at the 4200's performance in our core- I think what may be of > use to you is a comparison to equivalent Cisco gear- in this light we just > replaced a two-chassis 3750G stack with a two-chassis EX4200 stack (we > stack them to take advantage of port densities with staggered growth in the > core), and we are glad we did so. > > The EX series allows 1000 RVI's and 4k VLANS per virtual chassis- the > Catalyst 3xxx series only actually supports 8 RVI's, and they don't publish > this (you will find it when configuring the profile of the device). This > created a problem with 10 OSPF interfaces (and 15 other non-OPSF > interfaces) on the Cisco. Upon a link-state change on any of the Cisco's > OSPF-configured interfaces, the CPU would crank up to 100% and the stacked > device throughput was ground to a crawl (80%+ traffic loss). Changing the > configuration in the OSPF subsection, elimination of the problem interface > (flapping or not) from the configuration, or a complete reboot would solve > the problem- none of which are attractive solutions to a problem we > shouldn't have been having in the first place. > > Compare this to a two-chassis EX4200-48T stack we have in another part of > the network- 13 OSPF interfaces and ~845 other non-OSPF RVI's , and the > stacked device hasn't given us any grief. They cost us 1/3 less than the > Cisco solution, and doubled the port density (the Ciscos had 24 and the > Junipers we got have 48 ports). > > There are platform limitations, like memory, which may cause you to be a > little more exotic on BGP route selection, but the Catalyst 3750G's have > even less memory as I recall. Overall they have been extremely good for our > network, and have caused me to swear off Cisco completely. > > Hope this provides some insight. > > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net > [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Laurent HENRY > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 6:29 AM > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [j-nsp] EX 4200 stability with BGP and OSPF redistribution ? > > Hi all, > I am thinking about using two EX 4200 as redondant border routers > of my main Internet link. > > In this design, I would then need to use BGP with my ISP and OSPF for > inside route redistribution. > > Reading the archive, and on my own experience with the product too, i am > looking for feedbacks about stability of this solution with EX. > > In archives i understood there could have been some huge stability > problems, am i right ? > > Could things be different with 10.1 JunOS release ? > > Does anyone actually use these features actively with this platform ? > > > Regards > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp