[f-nsp] MLXe-4 vs ASR1006 vs MX80

[jmadrid2 at gmail.com]

Brad,

I have similar gripes with the Brocade documentation. The boxes themselves are workhorses and Cisco should pray to handle BGP as well as Brocade does. That being said, their documentation leaves A LOT to be desired. Thus far, we have run into some issues with our MLX's and to be honest, I have prayed that they would somehow magically become MX80's overnight, but as of now they haven't :)


Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Fleming <bdflemin at gmail.com>
Sender: foundry-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:49:01 
To: <foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [f-nsp] MLXe-4 vs ASR1006 vs MX80


On Apr 26, 2011, at 8:58 AM, David Hooton wrote:

> On 26/04/11 11:53 PM, "Jose Madrid" <jmadrid2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I currently use two MLXe-16 and can attest to the fact that you are
>> not going to get anywhere near 1m routes.  More like 500K max.  FYI.
>
> What are peoples experiences with XMR's?

We operate a network with 15 XMR 4000's and have been very happy. We  
pull transit feeds from 4 upstreams in geographically diverse  
locations. We run OSPF internally and support IPv4 and IPv6 unicast  
and multicast. We do NOT do much with L3 VPNS. Brocade has been a good  
partner and helped us with special pricing on some larger projects.

Three "gripes":
1) We have all 1st generation linecards and can't get VLAN stats. Easy  
way to fix it (buy new card) but we can't afford the new linecards.
2) I want to point a VLL to a non-routerID IP!
3) Regex for things like as-path filtering is poor compared to Cisco  
and Juniper.
General) Documentation is FAR behind Cisco and Juniper, IMHO.

The price per port + energy consumption make the XMR a slam dunk for  
our all-Ethernet network.
_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp