That does remind me though, if you want to use the ISSU feature when
upgrading a SRX HA pair. Make sure you check the protocols will be using
are supported.
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB17946
On 29 April 2013 15:46, Andrew Jones wrote:
> Scratch that, branch SRX's o
Scratch that, branch SRX's only!
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> You will also need to follow this if adding a New/RMA SRX into a cluster
> which is 10.4 or older, should save you a few days of troubleshooting :)
>
> http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=K
You will also need to follow this if adding a New/RMA SRX into a cluster
which is 10.4 or older, should save you a few days of troubleshooting :)
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB23929
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Craig Askings
wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> On 29 April 2013 0
Hi Jim,
On 29 April 2013 05:49, James Howlett wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thank You very much for the clarification. I will have only one ASBR. As
> for redundancy I'll go with a single 1400 unit and add a second in the
> future. Still, a single SRX1400 will be probably more stable then a single
> J63
2013/4/28 James Howlett
On the side note - does Juniper plan to have a replacement for J-series? Or
> we should switch to MX now?
>
I doubt you really need an MX. Though depends on what actually you are
using the J routers for.
Basically J series and Branch SRX (this is the official replacement
uture.
Still, a single SRX1400 will be probably more stable then a single J6350.
On the side note - does Juniper plan to have a replacement for J-series? Or we
should switch to MX now?
Thanks again,
jim
From: plu...@senetsy.ru
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 23:30:44 +0400
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] SR
ement for J-series? Or we
should switch to MX now?
Thanks again,
jim
From: plu...@senetsy.ru
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 23:30:44 +0400
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] SRX1400 opinions
To: jim.howl...@outlook.com
CC: jjo...@danrj.com; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Hi James,
So basically SRX1400 will do fine a
Hi James,
So basically SRX1400 will do fine as BGP router + firewall?
>
Yes, it will though using a stateful firewall as ASBR has implications:
traffic must go symmetrically, meaning forward and reverse flow of a given
session must always go through same ASBR. In practice, it means that either
yo
Ok, that is fine.
So basically SRX1400 will do fine as BGP router + firewall?
Regards,
jim
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] SRX1400 opinions
> From: jjo...@danrj.com
> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:11:19 -0500
> CC: xmi...@gmail.com; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> To: jim.howl...@outlook.com
Good, you cannot run UTM on the data center SRX at the moment, branch only.
On Apr 27, 2013, at 12:55 PM, James Howlett wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for the heads-up
> Srx's have replication issues with large routing environments. Duplicating
> two full feeds to the redundant peer will take a looo
Hello,
Thank you for the heads-up
> Srx's have replication issues with large routing environments. Duplicating
> two full feeds to the redundant peer will take a long time. In some
> testing many hours.
>
> With that said the 1400 can do it. Just keep that one major caveat in mind
> when
Srx's have replication issues with large routing environments. Duplicating two
full feeds to the redundant peer will take a long time. In some testing
many hours.
With that said the 1400 can do it. Just keep that one major caveat in mind when
you want clustered fail over.
Hope this helps,
Hello,
I have a network build on J4350 and SRX240 and i need to upgrade. I was
thinking about switching two devices for SRX1400.
My network has 2 full bgp feeds and some peerings. We use about 150-200Mbps
average. Will SRX1400 be a good choice then?
Best regards,
jim
13 matches
Mail list logo
