Obviously the external RE has its benefits, but I still need two RE per chassis to make use of it?
Morgan Sent from my iPhone On Oct 26, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <r...@e-gerbil.net> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:44:27PM -0200, Giuliano Medalha wrote: >> Morgan, >> >> I really dont know why JUNIPER did this kind of crazy environment with >> EX8200. >> >> Considering the MX family (240, 480 and 960 with TRIO 3D) and the new >> MX-L I think you do not need the external routing engines for virtual >> chassis. > > An external routing engine is actually a really good idea, you should > ask them to do it more, not less. There is absolutely no reason the RE > needs to be in the chassis, all it does it drive up the cost and slow > down upgrade cycles. When was the last time you saw a several year old > off the shelf PC that cost $32k? > > In the EX's case, the EX8200 is vastly underprovisioned on the stock RE > (one of the worst design decisions of all times), so it REALLY benefits > from an external RE. I never actually tried it in production though, so > no comments about the reliability (IMHO multi-chassis boxes are for > people who can't figure out routing protocols, I'd personally rather > have two independant control-planes instead). > > I'm still sad that I couldn't get Juniper to bless the XRE200 as an > external route reflector, since it's an infinitely more useful form > factor than a JCS, but alas lack of common sense knows no bounds. :) > > -- > Richard A Steenbergen <r...@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp