[j-nsp] MX80 IPSEC VPN

[ashish verma]

We are running IPSEC on MXs quite extensively and it has been fairly stable.
SRXs are good for IPSEC but depending on your performance requirement they
may not be able to scale well. MX80 IPSEC performance is much better than
SRX.
Configuration wise very similar as M7i or J series.

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Stepan Kucherenko <twh at megagroup.ru>
wrote:

> I do.
>
> And would recommend you to stick to SRX instead. It'll probably be much
> cheaper as well.
>
> MX/MS-MIC works but I've spent too much time to get to that point. It's
> less documented, less used so Google can't help you, it's different, it
> doesn't play well with others, it was probably designed with a different
> use case in mind, and so on and so on.
>
> I wish someone said that a year ago somewhere so I wouldn't do that myself.
>
> Or you can get it, help Juniper to debug their problems, write blog posts
> about it somewhere and make it more useful for others, your choice :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29.04.2015 14:51, Drew Weaver wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any real world experience in using MS-MIC-16G in an MX80
>> in order to create VPN tunnels?
>>
>> We are considering using an MX80 for a AWS direct connect and we want to
>> make sure that we can also have a VPN backup incase the physical link goes
>> down.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>> -Drew
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>