[j-nsp] Why should I *not* buy an MX?

[David Ball]

  I've done L2VPN (Kompella), L2Ckt (Martini), VRF, full BGP routes,
LDP, RSVP-TE on an MX960, and it all seems to 'work' so far.  Done
some QoS testing as well, though not yet finished.  It too, seems to
just 'work'.  I haven't found much that I 'dislike' about it yet
(other than the -R cards not showing ingress queue stats).

  My biggest complaint about the MX line so far is the comparitively
rediculous cost.  At $100k for a 20-port E-Q-model Gig SFP line card
for an MX480 (minus any heavy discounting), you can buy a fully
populated box with twice the ports and all the functionality (minus
Kompella-stuff) from other vendors, like Foundry's MLX or XMR lines
(which, like any vendor, come with their own surmountable
limitations).  Makes for a tough sell sometimes.

  As several folks here have commented before though, if cost isn't an
issue, I dunno why you wouldn't go with the MX if you're a Juniper fan
(which I am).

David


On 07/11/2008, bill fumerola <billf at mu.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 03:22:03PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
>> > Basically, can someone give me reasons apart from "we don't need SONET
>> > or any other WAN interfaces, and it's cheaper per port", why should we
>> > NOT choose an MX box?  Are there any gotchas waiting in the wings for
>> > someone who's used to the full flavored goodness that is the M/T
>> > series?
>>
>> Because it's expensive compared to possible alternatives outside
>> J-Land, including, but not limited to, Force-10.
>
> force10's cost advantage is chipped away at by the OP's IPv6 requirement.
>
> -- bill
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>