Yep I'm aware, but why are my OSPF neighbours going down when one switch reboots?
Luca -----Original Message----- From: Doug Hanks [mailto:dha...@juniper.net] Sent: Wednesday, 31 October 2012 2:42 PM To: Luca Salvatore; Morgan McLean; EXT - bd...@comlinx.com.au Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] How reliable is EX multichassis? 3300 and 8200 switches GR is mutually exclusive with NSR. You want NSR. On 10/30/12 5:44 PM, "Luca Salvatore" <l...@ninefold.com> wrote: >I'm just playing around with this now since I have a few new EX >switches not in production just yet Have a pretty simple setup with two >EX4500 in VC connected to another two >EX4500 in VC mode. I'm running OSPF between them. > >I rebooted the master member while running a ping an it took around 40 >seconds to come back up. I noticed that my OSPF adjacency went down >and the delay was waiting for the OSPF neighbours to come back up. > >I have: >nonstop-routing configured under routing options graceful-switchover >configured under chassis redundancy nonstop-bridging configured under >ethernet-switching-options > >Would graceful-restart be a better config than non-stop routing? > >Luca > > >-----Original Message----- >From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net >[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Morgan McLean >Sent: Wednesday, 31 October 2012 11:00 AM >To: Ben Dale >Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >Subject: Re: [j-nsp] How reliable is EX multichassis? 3300 and 8200 >switches > >Neither of these two options show up as a configurable flag: > >set routing-options nonstop-routing >set ethernet-switching-options nonstop-bridging > >I'm running 11.4R2.14 on the ex3300-48t switches. > >Granted, right now the VC is broken so maybe it doesn't allow me to >configure it? I can head to the datacenter and upgrade these two >devices to recommended release and report back tomorrow as well. > >Morgan > >On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Ben Dale <bd...@comlinx.com.au> wrote: > >> Hi Morgan, >> >> On 31/10/2012, at 9:06 AM, Morgan McLean <wrx...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Can anybody give me an idea regarding typical failover times if the >> master >> > in a two switch pair were to die? The quickest I've seen in my >> > testing >> with >> > EX3300's is 45 seconds, just for L2 forwarding to continue working, >> > no routing. All the ports drop link as well on the secondary switch >> > while things switch over. I can have my laptop connected to the >> > secondary >> switch, >> > passing traffic up an uplink on the secondary, and if the master >> > dies it creates a 45 second interruption. >> > >> > Normal? >> > >> >> Yes, but add the following to your configuration: >> >> set virtual-chassis no-split-detection (you may already have this) >> set routing-options nonstop-routing >> set ethernet-switching-options nonstop-bridging >> >> and try again. In your testing, put a 3rd switch in place with LACP >> and one leg to each member. >> >> My testing (45/42xx) has shown L2 should be pretty much hitless under >>most circumstances (except if your STP topology needs to re-converge), >>and L3 should around the 1-4 seconds mark (for violent failures of >>master RE). >> >> The worst case scenario though is re-merging a split VC, which can >> take the best part of 45 seconds, so avoid split-brain scenarios >> whenever possible with redundant VCP/VCPe or schedule their repair >> during planned outage windows. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ben >> >> >> >> >> > Morgan >> > >> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Giuliano Medalha < >> giuli...@wztech.com.br>wrote: >> > >> >> Robert, >> >> >> >> It was released by juniper one or two weeks ago I think. >> >> >> >> Take a look: >> >> >> >> >> https://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/mx2 >> 0 >> 00/ >> >> >> >> MX2010 >> >> MX2020 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/mx2 >> 0 >> 00/#specifications >> >> >> >> But I really don't know if it will support virtual chassis without >>JCS. >> >> >> >> Att, >> >> >> >> Giuliano >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Robert Hass <robh...@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Giuliano Medalha >> >>> <giuli...@wztech.com.br> wrote: >> >>>> Considering the MX family (240, 480 and 960 with TRIO 3D) and >> >>>> the new >> >>> MX-L >> >>> >> >>> Hi >> >>> What is new MX-L - can you write a little mort ? MX80 successor ? >> >>> >> >>> Rob >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > >_______________________________________________ >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