Re: Question about EX - SRX redundancy

Hi Rob I couldn't get the ports working on SRX with low priority on the cluster. They always showed as down by protocol and never picked traffic. Can you put some light on the reason for that? Thanks On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Rob Greenwood wrote: > > 3. In case of SRX only one devi

Re: Question about EX - SRX redundancy

> 3. In case of SRX only one device runs at a time and ports of other SRX > (slave) do not access traffic at all as long as it see the master is up via > heartbeat. Not entirely accurate. The control plane (routing engine) is only active on one SRX at a time, however, the data plane is activ

Re: Question about EX - SRX redundancy

Hello everyone Just thought to update over here that I was able to get it done as needed. Some quick points across the same on building redundancy between Juniper EX and SRX devices: 1. Virtual chassis in EX is very different from clustering in SRX and I did not realized the same initiall

Re: Question about EX - SRX redundancy

I just want to confirm your setup. The "criss-cross" setup you were describing is different from what I described. You listed: > 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 (

Re: Question about EX - SRX redundancy

Hi Tried exactly same. Note: it's ae18 and ae20 on EX side and reth4 on SRX side. Initially worked but when I took down ae18, i.e ae18 is disabled, now on ae20 I am getting: show interfaces ae20 Physical interface: ae20, Enabled, Physical link is Up Interface index: 533, SNMP ifIndex: 924

Re: Question about EX - SRX redundancy

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.

Re: Question about EX - SRX redundancy

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

Re: Question about EX - SRX redundancy

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 yo

Re: Question about EX - SRX redundancy

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 c

Re: Question about EX - SRX redundancy

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 wrote: > > Hello

Fwd: Question about EX - SRX redundancy

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