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

[David Ball]

    ...except that the MX80 won't have redundant REs (mgmnt modules)
or switch fabrics like the MLX does.

D


On 7 May 2010 14:38, David Kotlerewsky <webnetwiz at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundry-nsp mailing list
> foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
>