Re: [j-nsp] Inter-racks switch routing recommended practice
Sorry, yes, wrong way round! The AFL is the higher level license which builds on the features allowed under the EFL, so to use the AFL you also have to have the EFL. You can of course use the EFL without the AFL. Edward Dore Freethought Internet On 9 Jun 2013, at 21:51, Klaus Groeger wrote: > Edward, > > AFAIK one needs EFL to run AFL not vice versa: > > > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.3/topics/concept/ex-series-software-licenses-overview.html > > > > Regards > > Klaus > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Inter-racks switch routing recommended practice
Edward, AFAIK one needs EFL to run AFL not vice versa: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.3/topics/concept/ex-series-software-licenses-overview.html Regards Klaus ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Inter-racks switch routing recommended practice
Annoyingly, the EX3300 has two separate licenses for routing related features - the Enhanced Feature License and the Advanced Feature License. The EFL gets you basic IPv4/IPv6 routing including RIP, OSPF, VRRP, BFD. The AFL gets you more advanced routing options, which is basically just variations of BGP You need the AFL in order to use the EFL. Edward Dore Freethought Internet On 6 Jun 2013, at 02:31, Morgan McLean wrote: > 3300's require licensing for OSPFand I think once you've got that, > you've got BGP. > > I would still stick with OSPF, though. > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Wayne Tucker wrote: > >> You should be able to run that many racks inside a single OSPF area - >> in fact, multiple areas can result in a lot of type 3 LSAs if you do >> not summarize properly. You can improve initialization times and keep >> the LSDB down to one LSA per router if you: >> >> 1.) Set the RVIs on the ToRs to passive (to keep type 2 LSAs from >> being generated for the host subnets) >> 2.) Configure all of the ToR<->EX4550 links as point-to-point (ditto, >> plus avoid the DR election delays) >> >> At larger scales the frequency of LSA refreshes and SPF runs would >> make multiple areas (or other solutions) worthwhile, but for these >> platforms you're probably looking at hundreds of racks (or lots of >> really flaky links ;) before that even begins to be a conern. >> >> I can't think of anything BGP would provide that would be of >> significant benefit based on what you've described - plus I believe it >> requires additional licensing on those platforms. >> >> :w >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm building an infrastructure which comprises of a few tens of racks >> with Hadoop, Supermicro MicroCloud and whatnot running. Each rack probably >> will have EX4200 or EX3300 ToR switch, individually at the moment, not >> VC-chained. These switches will have a couple of EX4550 aggregating the >> circuits. >>> >>> My question is what would be the best routing protocol in this kind of >> scenario? >>> >>> I'm thinking multi-areas OSPF/v3 but would a flat OSPF area 0 topology >> with BGP make more sense? I don't have a lot of exposure in dense >> datacenter routing so I'm bringing the conventional WAN routing thinking >> cap into the picture. >>> >>> 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 >> > > > > -- > Thanks, > Morgan > ___ > 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
Re: [j-nsp] Inter-racks switch routing recommended practice
3300's require licensing for OSPFand I think once you've got that, you've got BGP. I would still stick with OSPF, though. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Wayne Tucker wrote: > You should be able to run that many racks inside a single OSPF area - > in fact, multiple areas can result in a lot of type 3 LSAs if you do > not summarize properly. You can improve initialization times and keep > the LSDB down to one LSA per router if you: > > 1.) Set the RVIs on the ToRs to passive (to keep type 2 LSAs from > being generated for the host subnets) > 2.) Configure all of the ToR<->EX4550 links as point-to-point (ditto, > plus avoid the DR election delays) > > At larger scales the frequency of LSA refreshes and SPF runs would > make multiple areas (or other solutions) worthwhile, but for these > platforms you're probably looking at hundreds of racks (or lots of > really flaky links ;) before that even begins to be a conern. > > I can't think of anything BGP would provide that would be of > significant benefit based on what you've described - plus I believe it > requires additional licensing on those platforms. > > :w > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm building an infrastructure which comprises of a few tens of racks > with Hadoop, Supermicro MicroCloud and whatnot running. Each rack probably > will have EX4200 or EX3300 ToR switch, individually at the moment, not > VC-chained. These switches will have a couple of EX4550 aggregating the > circuits. > > > > My question is what would be the best routing protocol in this kind of > scenario? > > > > I'm thinking multi-areas OSPF/v3 but would a flat OSPF area 0 topology > with BGP make more sense? I don't have a lot of exposure in dense > datacenter routing so I'm bringing the conventional WAN routing thinking > cap into the picture. > > > > 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 > -- Thanks, Morgan ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Inter-racks switch routing recommended practice
You should be able to run that many racks inside a single OSPF area - in fact, multiple areas can result in a lot of type 3 LSAs if you do not summarize properly. You can improve initialization times and keep the LSDB down to one LSA per router if you: 1.) Set the RVIs on the ToRs to passive (to keep type 2 LSAs from being generated for the host subnets) 2.) Configure all of the ToR<->EX4550 links as point-to-point (ditto, plus avoid the DR election delays) At larger scales the frequency of LSA refreshes and SPF runs would make multiple areas (or other solutions) worthwhile, but for these platforms you're probably looking at hundreds of racks (or lots of really flaky links ;) before that even begins to be a conern. I can't think of anything BGP would provide that would be of significant benefit based on what you've described - plus I believe it requires additional licensing on those platforms. :w On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim wrote: > Hi, > > I'm building an infrastructure which comprises of a few tens of racks with > Hadoop, Supermicro MicroCloud and whatnot running. Each rack probably will > have EX4200 or EX3300 ToR switch, individually at the moment, not VC-chained. > These switches will have a couple of EX4550 aggregating the circuits. > > My question is what would be the best routing protocol in this kind of > scenario? > > I'm thinking multi-areas OSPF/v3 but would a flat OSPF area 0 topology with > BGP make more sense? I don't have a lot of exposure in dense datacenter > routing so I'm bringing the conventional WAN routing thinking cap into the > picture. > > 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
Re: [j-nsp] Inter-racks switch routing recommended practice
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim wrote: > I'm thinking multi-areas OSPF/v3 but would a flat OSPF area 0 topology with > BGP make more sense? I don't have a lot of exposure in dense datacenter > routing so I'm bringing the conventional WAN routing thinking cap into the > picture. This is really a scale question. I think you'll find that, if you just dump everything into area 0 for now, it will not be very difficult to change that later on should you need to scale up. Note that the EX4550 has a rather small FIB/TCAM even compared to the EX4200. For tens of racks, this should be no problem. It is not what I would consider a good datacenter aggregation platform, though, due to its limited FIB. If you scale up you may find that you need to move layer-3 aggregation to a different kind of box. -- Jeff S Wheeler Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Inter-racks switch routing recommended practice
Hi, Here you check some ideas for using BGP in datacenter routing. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc-04 HTH Ivan, On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim wrote: > Hi, > > I'm building an infrastructure which comprises of a few tens of racks with > Hadoop, Supermicro MicroCloud and whatnot running. Each rack probably will > have EX4200 or EX3300 ToR switch, individually at the moment, not > VC-chained. These switches will have a couple of EX4550 aggregating the > circuits. > > My question is what would be the best routing protocol in this kind of > scenario? > > I'm thinking multi-areas OSPF/v3 but would a flat OSPF area 0 topology > with BGP make more sense? I don't have a lot of exposure in dense > datacenter routing so I'm bringing the conventional WAN routing thinking > cap into the picture. > > Thanks. > > > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > -- Best Regards! Ivan Ivanov ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Inter-racks switch routing recommended practice
Hi, I'm building an infrastructure which comprises of a few tens of racks with Hadoop, Supermicro MicroCloud and whatnot running. Each rack probably will have EX4200 or EX3300 ToR switch, individually at the moment, not VC-chained. These switches will have a couple of EX4550 aggregating the circuits. My question is what would be the best routing protocol in this kind of scenario? I'm thinking multi-areas OSPF/v3 but would a flat OSPF area 0 topology with BGP make more sense? I don't have a lot of exposure in dense datacenter routing so I'm bringing the conventional WAN routing thinking cap into the picture. Thanks. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
