[119351] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gary Mackenzie)
Mon Nov 16 11:17:24 2009
In-Reply-To: <443de7ad0911160808oee8f9cfo70e3391f36b054f2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:14:52 -0000 (GMT)
From: "Gary Mackenzie" <net-ops@monolith-networks.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: net-ops@monolith-networks.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> 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
