[119362] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mehmet Akcin)
Mon Nov 16 15:03:29 2009
From: Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net>
In-Reply-To: <11626.217.196.233.39.1258398045.squirrel@webmail-vh.tagadab.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:02:31 -0800
To: "net-ops@monolith-networks.net" <net-ops@monolith-networks.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Remember to request some quotes for MX-80, not yet released , soon to be =
out "lower end" routers.
and MX240 3Ds.=20
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.
>=20
> Thanks again for recommendation, good to know other people are using =
them
> successfully.
>=20
> Cheers
>=20
> Gary
>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 11/16/09 10:14 AM, "Gary Mackenzie" =
<net-ops@monolith-networks.net>
>> wrote:
>>=20
>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@wisc.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> have you looked at the MX series?
>>>>=20
>>>> +1
>>>> ~Chris
>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Dale
>>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> Cheers
>>>=20
>>> Gary
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> =
**************************************************************************=
*************
>> 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.
>>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
