[f-nsp] NetIron MLX-4 vs Juniper MX240

[David Kotlerewsky]

I'd say wait for MX80 to come out, and then compare the two. The MX80 will
have a much more attractive price point than the MX240. Then you can have a
decent comparison between say an MLX-4 and an MX80.

Sincerely,

David Kotlerewsky
Sr. Systems Engineer
InterVision Systems Technologies, Inc.
www.intervision.com

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Debbie Fligor <fligor at illinois.edu> wrote:

>
> On May 7, 2010, at 6:21, Scott T. Cameron wrote:
>
> >
> > On the MLX side of things.  With a rather large Foundry switching
> environment, I and my team are very comfortable on that platform.  The
> switches just work, and the strangest problem I have seen interop problems
> with a Cisco -- and I blame Cisco for that.  We have had some struggles
> using the Foundry ServerIron due to a few bugs here and there.  I do,
> however, expect that a full layer3 stack is significantly less complicated
> of code than what the ServerIron is able to do, so should have less bugs.
> >
>
>
> Our backbone (core and distribution layers) are MLX routers (I'm at the
> Urbana campus). Our regional network that connects the three campuses are
> also MLX routers. I would not suggest you assume fewer bugs than you've seen
> in the ServerIrons.
>
> We see much fewer headaches with their L2 devices typically than with their
> L3 devices, but we've moved to HP over the years for price/performance for
> most of our L2 access ports.  Our experience with BGP and OSPF is that those
> protocols are pretty solid.  ACLs are buggy, at least if you use them on a
> ve instead of a physical port, and PIM/MSDP is one of those things you keep
> your fingers crossed about with every single software upgrade, hoping that
> they fix more things than they break and that they will move forward in
> being fully standards compliant. mBGP (for multicast) is hit and miss, at
> least on our MPLS based regional network.  Some of that is config choices we
> made, some is their (apparent) lack of QA for anything multicast.
>
> they are fast hardware switching, and they reboot fast though and they're
> usually pretty good about fixing problems once you finally nail down what
> the problem is. I'll echo what someone else said, if your needs are simple,
> they'll probably work fine.  I can't honestly recommend them if you run PIM
> or MSDP however, that has been (and still is) a nightmare to keep working
> correctly.
>
> I can't compare to the Juniper MX, we've not got any of those.
>
> -----
> -debbie
> Debbie Fligor, n9dn       Network Engineer, CITES, Univ. of Il
> email: fligor at illinois.edu          <http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/fligor>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundry-nsp mailing list
> foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/foundry-nsp/attachments/20100507/e9bcadd3/attachment.html>