[119359] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gary Mackenzie)
Mon Nov 16 14:01:42 2009
In-Reply-To: <C726E852.1D1B%william.c.hale@windstream.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:00:45 -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
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.
>
