Routing
Routing

MX80 and MX5 rundundant links

‎10-17-2018 05:31 AM

Hello,

 

I have MX80 and MX5 in two different datacenters connected by GigE and FastE dark fiber. I'm looking for the best prtactice on creating redundant links in case one of them fails.

 

Wonder what other are doing in this situation?

 

Thanks!

7 REPLIES 7
Routing

Re: MX80 and MX5 rundundant links

‎10-17-2018 08:31 AM

If they are pure L3 links I would just enable BFD on the protocols to ensure fast failure detection. As they are not the same interface speed, you cannot bundle them in a LAG.

 

 


--
Best regards,

Jonas Hauge Klingenberg
Juniper Ambassador & Technology Architect, SEC DATACOM A/S (Denmark)
Routing

Re: MX80 and MX5 rundundant links

‎03-11-2019 12:37 PM

Sorry, looks like I never got an email that someone replied to this post.

 

I have tried to use BFD, following this article.

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/example/policy-static-routes-bfd.html

 

I'm guesing, I did something wrong, as the moment I did commit link dropped.

Routing

Re: MX80 and MX5 rundundant links

‎03-11-2019 05:25 PM

Can you confirm the configuration on both sides of the link.

Check the trace options file that is part of the configuration for error messages.

 

And if neither of these works, then walk through the troubleshooting steps outlined in this kb article.

https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB26746

 

Steve Puluka BSEET - Juniper Ambassador
IP Architect - DQE Communications Pittsburgh, PA (Metro Ethernet & ISP)
http://puluka.com/home
Routing

Re: MX80 and MX5 rundundant links

‎03-11-2019 11:16 PM

What is the topology?Is it l2 or l3? For l3 any protocol like bgp/ospf will meet the requirement

-Python JNCIE 3X [SP|DC|ENT] JNCIP-SEC JNCDS 3X [ WAN | DC|SEC] JNCIS-Cloud JNCIS-DevOps CCIP ITIL
#Please mark my solution as accepted if it helped, Kudos are appreciated as well.
Routing

Re: MX80 and MX5 rundundant links

‎03-12-2019 05:45 AM

It is static routing betwee two routers, MX80 and MX5 with 2 dark fibers.

 

Here is config pertaining to the interfaces used and the routing. I reducted the IP addresses...

 

MX5

set interfaces ge-1/0/0 flexible-vlan-tagging
set interfaces ge-1/0/0 encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services
set interfaces ge-1/0/0 unit 0 description "Public Internet Routing"
set interfaces ge-1/0/0 unit 0 vlan-id 10
set interfaces ge-1/0/0 unit 0 family inet address X.X.X.250/30

set interfaces ge-1/1/0 flexible-vlan-tagging
set interfaces ge-1/1/0 encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services
set interfaces ge-1/1/0 unit 0 vlan-id 10
set interfaces ge-1/1/0 unit 0 family inet address X.X.X.254/30

set routing-instances PublicInternet routing-options static route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop X.X.X.249
set routing-instances PublicInternet routing-options static route 0.0.0.0/0 qualified-next-hop X.X.X.253 preference 25

set routing-instances PublicInternet routing-options static route X.X.X.0/23 next-hop X.X.X.249
set routing-instances PublicInternet routing-options static route X.X.X.0/23 qualified-next-hop X.X.X.253 preference 25

 

MX80

set interfaces ge-1/0/4 flexible-vlan-tagging
set interfaces ge-1/0/4 encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services
set interfaces ge-1/0/4 unit 0 vlan-id 10
set interfaces ge-1/0/4 unit 0 family inet address X.X.X.249/30

set interfaces ge-1/1/4 flexible-vlan-tagging
set interfaces ge-1/1/4 encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services
set interfaces ge-1/1/4 unit 0 vlan-id 10
set interfaces ge-1/1/4 unit 0 family inet address X.X.X.253/30

set routing-options static route X.X.X.32/27 next-hop X.X.X.250
set routing-options static route X.X.X.32/27 qualified-next-hop X.X.X.254 preference 25
set routing-options static route X.X.X.16/28 next-hop X.X.X.250
set routing-options static route X.X.X.16/28 qualified-next-hop X.X.X.254 preference 25
set routing-options static route X.X.X.0/23 next-hop X.X.X.250
set routing-options static route X.X.X.0/23 qualified-next-hop X.X.X.254 preference 25
set routing-options static route X.X.X.192/28 next-hop X.X.X.250
set routing-options static route X.X.X.192/28 qualified-next-hop X.X.X.254 preference 25
set routing-options static route X.X.X.160/27 next-hop X.X.X.250
set routing-options static route X.X.X.160/27 qualified-next-hop X.X.X.254 preference 25
set routing-options static route X.X.X.96/27 next-hop X.X.X.250
set routing-options static route X.X.X.96/27 qualified-next-hop X.X.X.254 preference 25
set routing-options static route X.X.X.176/28 next-hop X.X.X.250
set routing-options static route X.X.X.176/28 qualified-next-hop X.X.X.254 preference 25

 

Routing

Re: MX80 and MX5 rundundant links

‎03-12-2019 05:55 AM

The links are up, both of them. Yeasterday one of the finbers got pulled of the pole by a dump truck. I spend some time with juniper support. In the end we came to conclusion that the way it is configured right now, the routers how no way of knowing when there is problem witih fiber as the interface never goes down when there is an issue.

After disabling interfaces for primary fiber on both ends, backup worked fine.

Routing

Re: MX80 and MX5 rundundant links

‎03-13-2019 03:07 AM

Since the link remains up could you use an RPM probe for testing these links.  You will need something you can only reach via the particular link.  Perhaps ping the directly connected interface. 

 

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/example/real-time-performance-monitoring-co...

 

Steve Puluka BSEET - Juniper Ambassador
IP Architect - DQE Communications Pittsburgh, PA (Metro Ethernet & ISP)
http://puluka.com/home