Re: Question about EX - SRX redundancy

[Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com>]

Putting the EXs in a VC and splitting your AEs across the 2x VC members 
takes care of that.

EXVC  (ae1)  >> Two Patches to SRX0 (reth1)
EXVC  (ae2)  >> Two Patches to SRX1 (reth1)

...where EXVC is a VC composed of EX0 and EX1, and ae1 and ae2 both have 
one member interface from each VC member.

In a failure of EX0 or EX1, your throughput on ae1 and ae2 halves as they 
each lose a LAG member, but both SRX0 and SRX1 are still reachable.

--
Hugo

On Thu 2015-Apr-02 23:50:46 +0530, Anurag Bhatia <me () anuragbhatia com> wrote:

> Hi
>
>
>
> Yes,
>
>
> Since SRX0 connected to EX0 and SRX1 connected to EX1 (only). Thus either
> pair - 0 will work or pair - 1 will work. I wish if criss crossing worked
> then failure of one EX would have still made both SRX available.
>
>
> In current worst case scenario - failure of EX0 and SRX1 can cause full
> outage.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com> wrote:
>
> > In:
> >
> >  > EX0  (ae1) >> Two Patches to SRX0 (reth1)
> > > > > EX1   (ae2)  >> Two Patches to SRX1 (reth1)
> > with:
> >
> >  > that if one EX goes down then I cannot make use of other corresponding
> > > > SRX.
> > Do you mean that e.g. if SRX0 is the chassis cluster primary and EX0 goes
> > down, then you can't use SRX0, but you would like to be able to survive EX0
> > going down *without* failing over the SRX chassis cluster to SRX1?
> >
> > --
> > Hugo
> >
> >
> > On Thu 2015-Apr-02 20:47:03 +0530, Anurag Bhatia <me () anuragbhatia com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >  Hi
> > > I thought cross chassis lag is supposed by the use of reth bundled at SRX
> > > end. I read this is basically the major difference in reth Vs ae bundle in
> > > SRX.
> > >
> > >
> > > Interesting factor here is that ae bundles can spread across multiple EX
> > > chassis in a virtual chassis environment but this cannot be the case with
> > > ae bundles in SRX.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Bill Blackford <bblackford () gmail com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >  It's my understanding that a cross chassis LAG is not supported. If there
> > > > is a way, I'm not aware of it. I'm running the same set up as your
> > > > working
> > > > example in my locations and for now, this suits my requirements.
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > > On Apr 2, 2015, at 07:12, Anurag Bhatia <me () anuragbhatia com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello everyone!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have got two Juniper EX series switches (on virtual chassis) and two
> > > > SRX
> > > > > devices on native clustering.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am trying to have a highly available redundancy between them with
> > > > atleast
> > > > > 2Gbps capacity all the time but kind of failing. I followed Juniper's
> > > > > official page here
> > > > > <http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB22474> as
> > > > well as
> > > > > this detailed forum link here
> > > > > <
> > > > http://forums.juniper.net/t5/SRX-Services-Gateway/Best-way-
> > > > of-redundancy-between-SRX-and-EX/td-p/181365
> > > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I wish to have a case where devices are connected criss cross and
> > > > following
> > > > > the documentation I get two ae bundles in EX side and one single reth
> > > > > bundle on SRX side. Both ae bundles on EX side have identical
> > > > configuration
> > > > > and VLAN has both ae interfaces called up.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If I do not go for criss cross connectivity like this:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > EX0  (ae1) >> Two Patches to SRX0 (reth1)
> > > > > EX1   (ae2)  >> Two Patches to SRX1 (reth1)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Then it works all well and redundancy works fine. In this case as long
> > > > as 1
> > > > > out of 4 patch is connected connectivity stays live but this has trade
> > > > off
> > > > > that if one EX goes down then I cannot make use of other corresponding
> > > > SRX.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I do criss connectivity, something like:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > EX0 (ae1) >> Two Patches to SRX0 (reth1)
> > > > > EX0 (ae1) >> One patch to SRX1 (reth1)
> > > > >
> > > > > EX1 (ae2)  >> Two Patches to SRX1 (reth1)
> > > > > EX1 (ae2)  >> One patch to SRX0 (reth1)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In this config system behaves very oddly with one ae pair (and it's
> > > > > corresponding physical ports) working well while failover to other ae
> > > > > bundle fails completely.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering if someone can point me out here.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Appreciate your time and help!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anurag Bhatia
> > > > > anuragbhatia.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter
> > > > > <https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>
> > > > > Skype: anuragbhatia.com
> > > > >
> > > > > PGP Key Fingerprint: 3115 677D 2E94 B696 651B 870C C06D D524 245E 58E2
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > Anurag Bhatia
> > > anuragbhatia.com
> > >
> > > Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter
> > > <https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>
> > > Skype: anuragbhatia.com
> > >
> > > PGP Key Fingerprint: 3115 677D 2E94 B696 651B 870C C06D D524 245E 58E2
>
>
> --
>
>
> Anurag Bhatia
> anuragbhatia.com
>
> Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>
> Skype: anuragbhatia.com
>
> PGP Key Fingerprint: 3115 677D 2E94 B696 651B 870C C06D D524 245E 58E2

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature