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

[David Ball]

    I'm not sure I follow.......do you not consider Foundry's MLX and
XMR lines to be 'routers' ?  I admit, they've essentially taken a
switch and taught it to route.....similar to the way Juniper took a
router and are teaching it to switch (MX doing STP, etc).  I think
it's still a relatively apples to apples comparison (albeit perhaps
Macintosh to Fuji apples).  Again, it comes back to what functionality
is required.  For all the testing I've done, both vendors were
successful at nearly all facets.

David


On 07/11/2008, sthaug at nethelp.no <sthaug at nethelp.no> wrote:
>>   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.
>
> VPLS (BGP based), Martini, VRF, full BGP routes, LDP for Martini, IPv6,
> RSVP-TE on MX240 and MX480. It all seems to "just work" here too. Found
> one netflow bug (ifIndex field being set to 0 sometimes in the netflow
> export).
>
>>   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.
>
> Funny. We've bought our MX boxes as *routers* not switches (and we have
> no plans to use them as switches), and find the price/performance quite
> good - much better than for instance M320 (which we also have).
>
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no
>