Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives
Thanks everybody for the feedback. I'll likely be getting a few quotes for MX series boxes I think, we're in the happy position of having a completely e-net infrastructure so we're not limited by interface options. Thanks again for recommendation, good to know other people are using them successfully. Cheers Gary
MX uses the I-Chip same as on M120/320 series. MX would be perfect for any location in the network P/PE if you are talking about E-Net services vs. TDM. They would be a perfect peering box if you are using E-Net.
On 11/16/09 10:14 AM, "Gary Mackenzie" <net-ops@monolith-networks.net> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@wisc.edu> wrote:
On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M series routers?
have you looked at the MX series?
+1 ~Chris
Dale
I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and PE router roles but never as border routers.
If there is some precedent for using them in this role that's good to hear and I'll take another look, I was loath to move away from Juniper as our current boxes are been the model of reliability.
Cheers
Gary
*************************************************************************************** The information contained in this message, including attachments, may contain privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered only to the person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, Windstream requests that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the message or its attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to anyone else.
Remember to request some quotes for MX-80, not yet released , soon to be out "lower end" routers. and MX240 3Ds. http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/mx240/ Normally Juniper sales guys don't quote you things that are coming out soon unless you specially ask for this. mehmet On Nov 16, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
Thanks everybody for the feedback. I'll likely be getting a few quotes for MX series boxes I think, we're in the happy position of having a completely e-net infrastructure so we're not limited by interface options.
Thanks again for recommendation, good to know other people are using them successfully.
Cheers
Gary
MX uses the I-Chip same as on M120/320 series. MX would be perfect for any location in the network P/PE if you are talking about E-Net services vs. TDM. They would be a perfect peering box if you are using E-Net.
On 11/16/09 10:14 AM, "Gary Mackenzie" <net-ops@monolith-networks.net> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@wisc.edu> wrote:
On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M series routers?
have you looked at the MX series?
+1 ~Chris
Dale
I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and PE router roles but never as border routers.
If there is some precedent for using them in this role that's good to hear and I'll take another look, I was loath to move away from Juniper as our current boxes are been the model of reliability.
Cheers
Gary
*************************************************************************************** The information contained in this message, including attachments, may contain privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered only to the person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, Windstream requests that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the message or its attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to anyone else.
participants (2)
-
Gary Mackenzie -
Mehmet Akcin