I've heard that it works. I have avoided it so far, however. Will O'Brien
On Apr 2, 2013, at 11:48 AM, "Mike Williams" <mike.willi...@comodo.com> wrote: > Hey all, > > So I've been reading the clustering docs, and they make it pretty clear that > the (at least) control link should connect the devices "back-to-back". > I don't have the page to hand but there is an option to configure the control > link in the old way, using (a?) VLAN (4094 IIRC), otherwise new clusters will > use a special ether-type. > > Now if Junos is going to use a new ether-type for control link communication > it's pretty certain the devices would have to be connected "back-to-back", > but > if control link traffic is within a specific VLAN switching it shouldn't be a > problem, right? I'd q-in-q the traffic anyway. > > The health of the control and fabric links is determined by heartbeats only, > not link state, so a switch wouldn't hurt that. > > I accept that clustering across a switch isn't necessarily advisable, I'm > just > wondering if it's fundamentally possible. > Has anyone ever even tried to put a switch between a J-series, or SRX-series, > cluster? > > Thanks > > > Currently we've 2 J6350s on different floors of a building, with different > providers. Around that building we have a 10Gbps VC ring of EX3300s. We want > to cluster the J-series' but don't want the hassle or cost of running copper > between the providers (if that's even possible) when the VC is way more than > fast enough. > Traffic levels are way way below 10Gbps, and it's highly unlikely they'll > ever > get that high. > > -- > Mike Williams > _______________________________________________ > 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