[c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

[adamv0025 at netconsultings.com]

Regarding the QOS sorry my bad wasn't specific enough, I didn't mean link congestion I mean TRIO chip overload (BW or PPS wise). 
Regarding BGP implementation yes agree that's my subjective opinion I just happen to work with both XR/JUNOS BGP and now have "high" expectations from Junos implementation.


adam
> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:saku at ytti.fi]
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 12:38 PM
> 
> This does not sound constructive to me. I know networks having less
> problem with JunOS BGP than IOS-XR BGP. I know several network running
> QoS in MX successfully. I am not saying IOS-XR is worse or better, I'm saying
> this is subjective opinion based on anecdotes. Another subjective opinion
> based on few anecdotes might be, run away from ASR9k at all cost, review
> situation in 5 years time when others have beta tested XRe and
> ezchip=>lightspeed migration is done.
> 
> On 26 October 2017 at 11:26,  <adamv0025 at netconsultings.com> wrote:
> > The selection of tool depends on the job to be done, and you haven't
> > provided any info on what you intend to use the boxes for so I can
> > only generalize.
> > If your network is carrying traffic of a single priority level or if
> > it just can't get congested then you'll be fine (well you'll still
> > have to bear the stupid BGP implementation in Junos) If the above is
> > not your case then save yourself a bunch of trouble and go with ASR9k
> > line instead.
> >
> > adam
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> 
> 
> 
> --
>   ++ytti