Hi,
You can read release notes
thanks
dilip
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Giovanni Bellac wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I have now spend a lot of time to find out the optimal version of JunOS for
> our
> newly ordered 2x EX4200s.
>
> 1) We will run a 2x EX4200 Virtual Chassis.
> 2) We will run BGP
Thought you might find this useful as well:
I know that there is a memory leak issue on JunOS 10.0 for EX4200 affecting VC
stacks in particular where the stack members fall over from memory exhaustion
when the uptime reaches around 360 days. Can't remember which release fixes it
though.
Regar
> Also important to note: You might not plan to carry the full table, but if
> you plan to accomplish that by rejecting any route from your ISP other than
> the default, you'll have a performance problem when the EX has to reject
> thousands (full table now at ~350k routes) of routes. Be sure to
Hope a 2-week later reply is still relevant for you:
I've had good experience with 10.0S1.1 and 10.1R3.7 in setups that include your
3 requirements below. As noted earlier in the thread, upgrades on a EX VC are
not hitless, so keep that in mind. The VC will not provide HA for a code
upgrade.
A
Hi Tore,
Can't speak on the EX4500s as I've not had the chance to worked with them.
No experience on the EX4500s
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Tore Anderson <
tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com> wrote:
> * Rafael Rodriguez
>
> > software upgrades on EX4200 VCs are NOT hitless - the whole VC is
* Rafael Rodriguez
> software upgrades on EX4200 VCs are NOT hitless - the whole VC is
> down for the duration of the upgrade (sometimes 15+ mins). VC !=
> redundancy/HA, VC = less switches to manage.
Hi Rafael,
Do you know if this limitation applies to the EX 4500 as well?
Best regards,
--
To
net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 2x EX4200 Virtual Chassis Layer2/3 - Which JunOS
Version ?
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
Yes that's why in our latest EX4200 VC we are creating two "rings" of
switches. Since it's mainly servers where we can run team
t; To: Giovanni Bellac
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 2x EX4200 Virtual Chassis Layer2/3 - Which JunOS
> Version ?
>
> Just an FYI, because I've seen this bite people before (not specific to
> your
> question)... software upgrades on EX4200 VCs are
uary 23, 2011 12:33 PM
To: Giovanni Bellac
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 2x EX4200 Virtual Chassis Layer2/3 - Which JunOS
Version ?
Just an FYI, because I've seen this bite people before (not specific to your
question)... software upgrades on EX4200 VCs are NOT hitless - th
Just an FYI, because I've seen this bite people before (not specific to your
question)... software upgrades on EX4200 VCs are NOT hitless - the whole VC
is down for the duration of the upgrade (sometimes 15+ mins).
VC != redundancy/HA, VC = less switches to manage.
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 04:13:25PM +, Giovanni Bellac wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I have now spend a lot of time to find out the optimal version of JunOS for
> our
> newly ordered 2x EX4200s.
>
> 1) We will run a 2x EX4200 Virtual Chassis.
> 2) We will run BGP default routes (NO full table) and
Hi Giovanni,
Here I have 3 virtual-chassis 2xEX4200. Two of them used as access L2
switches, and the last one as L3 border CE (it´s running 4
rouing-instances against 4 VRF with OSPF, 2 LAGs, variuos RVIs and
Filter-Based-Forwardig to accomplish a specific cistomer requirement).
Here there i
niper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] 2x EX4200 Virtual Chassis Layer2/3 - Which JunOS Version ?
Hello all
I have now spend a lot of time to find out the optimal version of JunOS for our
newly ordered 2x EX4200s.
1) We will run a 2x EX4200 Virtual Chassis.
2) We will run BGP default r
@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] 2x EX4200 Virtual Chassis Layer2/3 - Which JunOS Version ?
Hello all
I have now spend a lot of time to find out the optimal version of JunOS for
our
newly ordered 2x EX4200s.
1) We will run a 2x EX4200 Virtual Chassis.
2) We will run BGP default routes (NO full table
Hello all
I have now spend a lot of time to find out the optimal version of JunOS for our
newly ordered 2x EX4200s.
1) We will run a 2x EX4200 Virtual Chassis.
2) We will run BGP default routes (NO full table) and announce our /21.
3) We will connect our rack-switches to the Virtual Chassis.
So
15 matches
Mail list logo
