[119356] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin Oberman)
Mon Nov 16 12:18:55 2009
To: net-ops@monolith-networks.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:14:52 GMT."
<29152.82.132.136.147.1258388092.squirrel@webmail-vh.tagadab.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:18:03 -0800
From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:14:52 -0000 (GMT)
> From: "Gary Mackenzie" <net-ops@monolith-networks.net>
>
> > 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.
We use them as peering routers and are in the process of upgrading all
of our peering routers to MX boxes.
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
