[j-nsp] What do you think about the MX line?

[Correa Adolfo]

Yes, I'd go for MX240 and upper, as you could grow them redundantly and also in memory in the future.

-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mehmet Akcin
Sent: domingo, 26 de junio de 2011 11:25 p.m.
To: Ryan Finnesey
Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] What do you think about the MX line?

you probably want MX240-480-960s rather.

mehmet

On Jun 26, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:

> We are looking at the MX80s for about 60GB of traffic  with also some private MLPS interconnection.
> Cheers
> Ryan
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy Kaufman [mailto:tkaufman at corp.nac.net] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:49 PM
> To: Ryan Finnesey; 'mtinka at globaltransit.net'; 'juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net'
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] What do you think about the MX line?
> 
> Which one are you looking at?
> How many peers do you plan to configure?
> How much traffic?
> Thanks
> 
> Tim Kaufman
> Sent via blackberry
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net <juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net>
> To: mtinka at globaltransit.net <mtinka at globaltransit.net>; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Sun Jun 26 22:15:34 2011
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] What do you think about the MX line?
> 
> For us I will be looking at the MX Line mainly for peering.  Anyone having issues with using them with peering?
> 
> Cheers
> Ryan
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 9:19 PM
> To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] What do you think about the MX line?
> 
> On Monday, June 27, 2011 06:56:48 AM Keegan Holley wrote:
> 
>> I think the general attitude is positive towards them. 
>> They are a good compliment to the M/T series and generally solid 
>> flexible boxes.  You should probably include how you plan to use them 
>> in your question.  For example a few list members complain about 
>> multicast/IGMP bugs and other issues with the new trio based cards and
> 
>> some of the new code.  If you don't run alot of multicast these 
>> wouldn't really apply to you.
> 
> For us, we use them heavily in the edge, and that hasn't been the smoothest of rides.
> 
> My guess is if you need them for peering or in the core, you might have less issues, but not necessarily (we already know of core applications where the MX could be troublesome - but the edge role takes the cake, by far).
> 
> There are also some limitations, so far, if we use them as BRAS's, but these are mostly bugs are feature unavailability at this time. The problem is that without the feature being present today, it's hard to know how the box will scale, which could be a big problem unto itself.
> 
> All in all, it depends on the complexity/sophistication of your deployment, the role you're placing the MX in, and what features you're going to need. For some folk, it's the perfect box. For others, it's less so.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp