On 19/12/13 14:25, Tom Storey wrote:
Hi everyone.
Whats the general consensus about using a J series entirely in packet
mode?
We do it with no problems on both J-series and branch SRX (210H, FWIW).
Some people are annoyed about the amount of RAM consumed (wasted) by
starting the flow daemon. Whether that matters will depend on how much
RAM you need.
Are there any gotchyas to be wary of, like missing features,
Basically anything flow-related; no ipsec, etc.
performance hit? It looks like you can configure 3 address families
for packet mode (iso, inet6, mpls) but not inet4. But, from what Im
reading, enabling MPLS packet mode forces the whole box in to packet
mode, including inet4.
Yes.
FWIW the situation I am picturing would not require NAT or IPSEC or
other services like that, just packet shifting with ACLs, some
routing protocols (IS-IS/BGP), and something like VRRP for gateway
redundancy.
This is exactly what we do, with MPLS L3VPN and PIM multicast on top. It
works fine.
As I understand it the J series were originally a packet mode box
until Juniper switched the default behaviour to flow based. Has
there been any major architecture changes that would rule out packet
mode operation?
Not as far as I'm aware; current JunOS on our J-series is 11.4R7.5 and
we're running packet-mode no problems.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
