Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OSPF require the AFL license anyway to be 'legitly' ran? Price difference might be a lot smaller depending on that. On 8/6/2014 午後 08:30, Yucong Sun wrote:
I used ex4200 to do exactly what you did before. ex4200 releases is pretty rock solid, feature extensive, although with lower arp entry limits.
Given the price difference maybe you can connect each l2 domain to its own ex4200 and have them do ospf routing among selves, which maybe give you better failure tolerances compare to a single core.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Giuliano Cardozo Medalha < giuliano@wztech.com.br> wrote:
we are using ex4300 with the last release available
the setup is pretty simple using virtual chassis, lag, L3 and poe
it works pretty fine and we do not have any serious problems
sometimes the poe controller goes down but we have a case oppened in jtac to try solve it
Sent from my iPhone
On 06/08/2014, at 07:15, Sebastian Wiesinger <juniper-nsp@ml.karotte.org> wrote: * Paul S. <contact@winterei.se> [2014-08-02 05:18]:
Hi folks,
We're considering the EX4300 to run routing (l3) for a few hypervisors of ours that are connected via l2.
Primarily interested due to the rather massive arp limit (64, 000) on the switch, but we've been told (and searched for ourselves to find out) that the 4300 platform has been plagued by random issues since launch. I don't have hands-on experience but I looked at the EX4300 platform for a new deployment. If you look at the current release notes:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.2/information-products/topic-c...
There are a lot of (serious) bugs still getting fixed so I'm not sure how mature this platform is. One big reason for that is probably because EX4300 uses other chips than the rest of the 4xxx series (Broadcom).
Regards
Sebastian
-- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant _______________________________________________ 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
it appears not, ospf + ipv4 was not mentioned here: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.4/topics/concept/ex-series-sof... On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Paul S. <contact@winterei.se> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OSPF require the AFL license anyway to be 'legitly' ran?
Price difference might be a lot smaller depending on that.
On 8/6/2014 午後 08:30, Yucong Sun wrote:
I used ex4200 to do exactly what you did before. ex4200 releases is pretty rock solid, feature extensive, although with lower arp entry limits.
Given the price difference maybe you can connect each l2 domain to its own ex4200 and have them do ospf routing among selves, which maybe give you better failure tolerances compare to a single core.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Giuliano Cardozo Medalha < giuliano@wztech.com.br> wrote:
we are using ex4300 with the last release available
the setup is pretty simple using virtual chassis, lag, L3 and poe
it works pretty fine and we do not have any serious problems
sometimes the poe controller goes down but we have a case oppened in jtac to try solve it
Sent from my iPhone
On 06/08/2014, at 07:15, Sebastian Wiesinger <
juniper-nsp@ml.karotte.org>
wrote:
* Paul S. <contact@winterei.se> [2014-08-02 05:18]:
Hi folks,
We're considering the EX4300 to run routing (l3) for a few hypervisors of ours that are connected via l2.
Primarily interested due to the rather massive arp limit (64, 000) on the switch, but we've been told (and searched for ourselves to find out) that the 4300 platform has been plagued by random issues since launch.
I don't have hands-on experience but I looked at the EX4300 platform for a new deployment. If you look at the current release notes:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.2/ information-products/topic-collections/ex-qfx-series/ release-notes/ex-qfx-series-junos-release-notes-13.2X51-D25.pdf
There are a lot of (serious) bugs still getting fixed so I'm not sure how mature this platform is. One big reason for that is probably because EX4300 uses other chips than the rest of the 4xxx series (Broadcom).
Regards
Sebastian
-- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE
SCYTHE.
-- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant _______________________________________________ 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
❦ 6 août 2014 20:54 +0900, "Paul S." <contact@winterei.se> :
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OSPF require the AFL license anyway to be 'legitly' ran?
OSPF does not need a feature license on those models (it is needed on EX2200). AFL is needed for BGP, IS-IS and MPLS. -- Use statement labels that mean something. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
On 8/6/2014 午後 09:13, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 6 août 2014 20:54 +0900, "Paul S." <contact@winterei.se> :
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OSPF require the AFL license anyway to be 'legitly' ran? OSPF does not need a feature license on those models (it is needed on EX2200). AFL is needed for BGP, IS-IS and MPLS.
3300 too, apparently -- thanks for the correction.
participants (3)
-
Paul S. -
Vincent Bernat -
Yucong Sun