Shhhhhhhh .... if there are problems with VC , I don't want my EX4550's to hear about it.... LOL ....They've been behaving just fine for so long I forgot they were there.
{master:1} root@sabn-dcvc-4550> show system uptime | grep "days|fpc" fpc0: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7:13PM up 1285 days, 6:57, 0 users, load averages: 0.16, 0.13, 0.09 fpc1: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7:13PM up 1285 days, 6:57, 2 users, load averages: 0.18, 0.15, 0.13 {master:1} root@sabn-dcvc-4550> {master:1} root@stlr-dcvc-4550> show system uptime | grep "days|fpc" fpc0: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7:16PM up 1289 days, 5:27, 0 users, load averages: 0.35, 0.21, 0.17 fpc1: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7:16PM up 1289 days, 5:48, 1 user, load averages: 0.10, 0.10, 0.09 {master:1} - Aaron -----Original Message----- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Vincent Bernat Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 2:29 PM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MC-LAG reliability Hey! I also think that the VC is quite reliable. However, by design, it is a bit fragile. rpd can die and take the whole VC down. I also remember quite a few problems with upgrades but this is quite ancient, so maybe this doesn't apply any more. I didn't test much, but even on the EX3300 with 15.5, you seem to have MC-LAG support (and no warnings from the CLI when using it). Dunno if this is recent or not. -- Don't just echo the code with comments - make every comment count. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger) ――――――― Original Message ――――――― From: Raphael Mazelier <r...@futomaki.net> Sent: 22 décembre 2016 18:32 +0100 Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MC-LAG reliability To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Hey, > > My experience with VirtualChassis with a lot of them (you know where) > is globally positive. In fact I dot not remember when a VC completly > fail. This is not a perfect techno but it do the job for very low cost > of setup. > > On EX series you have no choice, afaik MC-LAG is not supported (unless > on highend series). > > On QFX I would hesitate. My tests are OK. > Running independent switches is more reliable indeed, but even with > automation tool the cost of setup/maintenance is bit higher. (and in > my actual work I have just no time to spend with network config > unfortunately). > > -- > Raphael Mazelier > > On 22/12/2016 15:15, Vincent Bernat wrote: >> Hey! >> >> How reliable should MC-LAG be considered on EX and QFX series (in a >> pure >> L2 setup)? >> >> I had a few bad experiences with virtual chassis where a hiccup >> usually translates to both switches becoming unavailable. This is >> pretty rare of course. MC-LAG would avoid those coordinated faults >> but is it otherwise as reliable as virtual chassis? >> >> Thanks! >> > _______________________________________________ > 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