Switching

Hi,

I'm right now testing a couple of QFX5200 in the lab to put them into production later as a L2/L3 device. Regarding the datasheet, the device actually does support (T)ISSU for seamless upgrades: http://www.juniper.net/assets/de/de/local/pdf/datasheets/1000560-en.pdf

"• Topology-Independent In-Service Software Upgrade (TISSU): On the QFX5200, two instances of Junos OS VMs run in a Linux-based virtualized environment, one in active mode and the other in standby mode. During a software upgrade, the switch seamlessly moves from the active Junos VM running the current software version to the second standby VM running the newer version while maintaining intact data plane traffic. This true topology-independent ISSU—an industry-first for a fixed-configuration, single CPU top-of-rack switch—is supported across all Layer 2 and Layer 3 protocols, and does not req"

However, this page says something else: http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos15.1/topics/reference/requirements/issu-system-requirements-qfx5100.html

"Note: The QFX5200 switches do not support ISSU."

Since there is only one JunOS available right now, I simply installed the same JunOS on the device that was already running there. Since there is no in-service-software-upgrade command, I used the regular one assuming, that the VM switchover would now be done automatically without further intervention required be me. But actually that wasn't the case and even if the Host OS was completely identical, the system said, that a Host OS upgrade will be forced as well. The upgrade itself took about 10 minutes and the device was completely offline meanwhile. The question therefore is: which information is correct? Does the device support ISSU or not? If not, will it support it in the future? Thanks for any suggestions.

ISSU is not supported yet on QFX5200:

https://pathfinder.juniper.net/feature-explorer/issu.html

You could open a case to have the datasheet corrected.

=====

If this worked for you please flag my post as an "Accepted Solution" so others can benefit. A kudo would be cool if you think I earned it.

Thanks for the answer. So will it support ISSU in the not too distant future?

Well, according to this, doesn't seem to be planned in the short future:

https://pathfinder.juniper.net/home/#QFX5200/Roadmap+(SOPD)

However, you should get in touch with your Juniper representative and ask him/her to follow up on this with the PLM team.


=====

If this worked for you please flag my post as an "Accepted Solution" so others can benefit. A kudo would be cool if you think I earned it.

Had a pretty bad support experience here. I opened a support case for that asking for this very topic and simply wanted to get an answer

- if the datasheet is just wrong or

- if the feature will be added a little later

The constant answer I got was "you don't have a support contract, we will not answer you". This is quite strange since we bought two of those for the lab in order to identify if those machines will work for a future setup or not. So right now it's not mission critical but that shouldn't be the point: my question was not support contract related but a general issue with the promise, that Juniper made and didn't keep. 

To sum it up: this is not how a Vendor should deal with that. It's like asking a car vendor why it doesn't have the navigation installed that every catalogue said it has by default and the vendor answers that you won't receive an answer because you didn't come to his workshop for the last maintenance but chose an independent one.

@Nico82, I hope you do see this response, as I know this is old thread.  Juniper TAC is designed to handle break/fix situations, not "will it happen" type of questions.  In just checking now, the datasheet was corrected and (T)ISSU support was removed.

As for the datasheet, unfortunately this document needs to be made ready, long before product is released, so often times it includes items that were "supposed to be there", but did not make it for initial release.

Your best source for specific non-break/fix situations is your (hopefully value-added) local partner who your purchased from or Juniper account team, if you have one.  In many situations the partner themselves works with a local back-end Juniper account team.  This is one major difference in purchasing Juniper gear via the Internet or via a VAR.  Yes VAR will likely cost a little more, but there is some added value as well.

Take care.

---

@Nico82 wrote:

Had a pretty bad support experience here. I opened a support case for that asking for this very topic and simply wanted to get an answer

 

- if the datasheet is just wrong or

- if the feature will be added a little later

 

 

The constant answer I got was "you don't have a support contract, we will not answer you". This is quite strange since we bought two of those for the lab in order to identify if those machines will work for a future setup or not. So right now it's not mission critical but that shouldn't be the point: my question was not support contract related but a general issue with the promise, that Juniper made and didn't keep. 

 

To sum it up: this is not how a Vendor should deal with that. It's like asking a car vendor why it doesn't have the navigation installed that every catalogue said it has by default and the vendor answers that you won't receive an answer because you didn't come to his workshop for the last maintenance but chose an independent one.

---