If you are looking for small foot print I +1 the 240s. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Jason Bothe <jason@rice.edu> wrote:
Graham,
We use both the MX240 and MX480 (for 100G) 1800REs. Very happy with this hardware.
Jason Bothe, Manager of Networking
o +1 713 348 5500 m +1 713 703 3552 jason@rice.edu
On 5, Dec 2014, at 10:59 AM, Graham Johnston <johnstong@westmancom.com> wrote:
I am wondering if anyone can provide their real world experience about sizing Juniper MX routers as it relates to BGP. I am needing a device that has a mix of layer 2 and 3 features, including MPLS, that will have a very low port count requirement that will primarily be used at a remote POP site to connect to the local IX as well as one or two full route transit providers. The MX104 has what I need from a physical standpoint and a data plane standpoint, as well as power consumption figures. My only concern is whether the REs have enough horsepower to churn through the convergence calculations at a rate that operators in this situation would find acceptable. I realize that 'acceptable' is a moving target so I would happily accept feedback from people using them as to how long it takes and their happiness with the product.
For those of you that deem the MX104 unacceptable in this kind of role and moved up to the MX240, what RE did you elect to use?
Thanks, Graham Johnston Network Planner Westman Communications Group 204.717.2829 johnstong@westmancom.com<mailto:johnstong@westmancom.com> P think green; don't print this email.