On 5/25/17 1:12 PM, George Giannousopoulos wrote:
> Would you prefer a chassis or an RSP failover having in mind the highest > possible service availability? So the only chassis-based clustering we've done is switch stacking. We've stayed away from clustering routers, or even running things like MC-LAG. Our switch clusters are discrete units running as several members that form a cluster. Not much you can do there, as one member is main control plane, and another the backup. For all our chassis-based routers/switches, we've chosen to have dual control planes if they are supported. The incremental cost is marginal, and looking at how often they have failed (thankfully, one at a time, and not both together), well worth it. In the old days, when we ran Cisco 6500 for our core switching, we initially run a single RP. These days, we are running Arista chassis-based switches for high-capacity core switching, and these come with 2 control planes each, as a matter of course. Mark. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
