I want to create a virtual chassis using 2x EX2300-C-12P switches.
In the future this virtual chassis will be extended with one or two EX2300-24P.
From what I understand it's possible to do this.
Concerning licensing I've read that each individual switch in the virtual chassis must have a VC license installed.
For the EX2300-24P it's clear that this is the EX2300-VC license.
For the EX2300-C-12P it's absolutely not clear.
According to the datasheet there's only one license for EX2300-C:
EX-12-EFL enhanced feature license which - according to the datasheet - includes a VC license.
According to the tech library the enhanced feature license for EX2300-C is EX-24-EFL - not EX-12-EFL.
According to my local juniper partner, the license to get is EX2300-VC.
I've contacted JTAC thinking the guys that make it know how it worksbut unfortunately they forwarded me to Sales.
I've contacted Juniper Sales but they haven't gotten back to me for several days nowwhere usually they respond swiftly.
(1) Does anyone have experience with this setup and can enlighten me on which licenses are the correct ones?
(2) Suppose EX-12-EFL works - can I still use it when adding a 24-port model to the VC later? (provided the 12-port switches remain master and backup)
Thanks in advance,
Not sure why the confusion. Since EX2300 VC (whether -C there or not) requires a license per switch, you would purchase the EX-12-EFL for EX2300-C and EX-24-EFL for EX2300, no? Separate different license per model. For EX2300 every switch in VC requires a license. You can also purchase EX2300 model SKU that includes EFL for VC.
Juniper price list shows (EFL coverage for 2200 is NOT the same as for EX2300):
The confusion for me is that different sources give different information.
It's possible to buy a license that only permits VC; or a license that permits VC + various enhanced features.
I was under the impression that you'd only buy EFL for 2 switches in any virtual chassis.
(one for the master switch and one for the backup switch).
The other switches only need the virtual chassis license without enhanced features.
Or is that not correct?
You need the EFL license for VR and VRRP, and in a VC you need one for each switch.
Virtual Chassis doesnt require a license in any EX series.
You can't buy a license thata only enables the feature you need at a set price, it doesnt work that way with Junos licenses.
If your EX2300-C for some odd reason requires a license, the EFL license will cost you more, than just upgrading the hardware to e.g. EX3300-24 switches.
@dominic_cuynen as you have discovered, EX2300 is a special case for both how licenses and VC are applied. For either case, license is required on each switch, not just 2 (master and backup RE). EFL is required on this one EX product (to-date) for VC and is required on all members.
For all other EX products, any licence is only required on 2 of the switches with a VC, equal to one on Master and one on Back-up RE.
Thanks for the clarification.
That's the clearest information I've gotten.
This statement actually does not match what Junipe Sales has told us. Only the routing-engines require a VC license per the rep. I worked with. The Line-cards do not require a VC-license.
As I'm working for a Juniper disti and handles these kind of orders/questions on a daily basis I can disqualify this statement.
When looking at internal documentaton and ordering guides it's clearly stated that "Virtual Chassis license required for each EX2300 VC member".. so your Juniper Sales contact has to update his/her knowledge on the EX2300 platform.
The only exception to this is the EX2300-C-12T and EX2300-C-12P where you as an alternative can purchase EX-12-EFL to include the VC functionality (as refered previously by rccpgm). Documented on https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/understanding_software_licenses.html#jd0e151
Note: EX-12-EFL is cheaper than buying EX2300-VC for the the EX2300-C models 🙂
In general, EX Access switch licenses are only required on 2 members of any VC - Master and Backup. EX2300 is a special case where for VC/etc. license is needed on every member of the VC.
The current documentation is not clear on this, AFAIK, so I have suggest an improvement to: