[127881] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: virtual switches
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (david raistrick)
Sun Jul 18 23:31:36 2010
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:31:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org>
To: Truman Boyes <truman@suspicious.org>
In-Reply-To: <5C18AFC5-3D20-4DA8-87B9-EF7826631039@suspicious.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>,
Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Truman Boyes wrote:
>> Cisco has VSS (on 6500 class) and H3C has IRF; allowing you to
>> virtualize 2 or more physical switches/routers in an active/active
>> configuration
> Juniper also has Virtual Chassis support on the EX-series. The MX also
> supports active/active multi chassis-LAG. It works as you would expect,
I seem to recall that both of these implementations suffer from some
significant limitations around how/what you can do with them, as well as
HA options...though that's all I can remember from digging into it
(enough to realize it wouldn't work for us) last year.
OTOH, Raptor's "virtual chassis" magic (while it has its own issues...)
didn't have these problems. :)
--
david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
drais@icantclick.org http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
