[j-nsp] MX240

[Keith]

On Mon, 10 May 2010, Chris Evans wrote:

|->I think it depends on what you are trying to do with the device. To run the
|->MX with those line modules you need to run later code which juniper is
|->having some serious bug issues lately. We have both the asr and mx in our
|->environments. I would consider the code more stable on the asr for our
|->purposes.
|->
|->The asr is a small m series competitor but better as it is newer. The m
|->series is an aging product line and juniper is now realizing this I think.
|->Hence why they are pitching a mx to you.  The mx is getting a product
|->refresh with the new 3d line modules. I wouldn't place an asr head to head
|->with a mx though.
|->
|->As it sounds like you are a Cisco shop have you factored in the cost of
|->support? Meaning that your support staff has to relearn a product? This is a
|->huge factor for my company.
|->
|->All in all both are great products meant for two different markets.

Whatever device we choose it will replace a 7206vxr. And yes we have
factored in the cost of support as there are only 2 of us that touch
routers here. It just seems for the same price we are getting twice the
box with the Juniper.

We do not do anything fancy, some internal RIP, which is almost gone from
our network now, BGP with our upstream and some static internal routes.
Strictly L3, though from what I have learned about the MX is that it will
do L2 too, which I think might be useful to have for some future things
we might want to do.

It pretty much will be used just for our main gateway router. We are
having a hard time deciding if it fits for us. We have to get 2 ASR's to
get some redundency, while the MX has it all in one chassis. Has more
ports too.

The MX seems to fit into different parts of the network depending on what
one wants to do with it. But the MX seems it will push raw packets faster
than the ASR1002's will. Is that the case?

Thanks this was helpful.