[143526] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Experience with Juniper MX-80s
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Meijerink)
Thu Aug 11 16:09:36 2011
From: Mark Meijerink <Mark.Meijerink@vancis.nl>
To: "bpasdar@batblue.com" <bpasdar@batblue.com>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:08:53 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20110811134356.1c673f90@concur.batblue.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Babak,
For one of our customers we run two MX-80's. Both with two full routing pee=
rs plus a lot of other smaller BGP peerings at a local IX. So far no strang=
e behaviour or poor performance. Peerings are all IPv4 and IPv6. I don't kn=
ow if you would need specific features but for the basic border router func=
tionality it seems to perform as expected.
Regards,
Mark
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Babak Pasdar [mailto:bpasdar@batblue.com]=20
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:44 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Experience with Juniper MX-80s
Hello NANOG Group,
I am curious if anyone has any experiences positive or negative with Junipe=
r MX-80s. Our recent experience with Juniper has not been great both in te=
rms of new product offerings (SRX) and software bugs in the recent revs of =
Junos for the MX platform. I want to know if the MX-80 functions as advert=
ised and in specific can properly handle two full IPv4 and IPv6 BGP feeds=20
Thanks in advance,
Babak=20
--
Babak Pasdar
President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker
Bat Blue Corporation | Integrity . Privacy . Availability . Performance
(p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (f) 212.584.9999 | (w) www.BatBlue.com
Bat Blue is proud to be the Official WiFi Provider for ESPN's X Games
Bat Blue's AS: 25885 | BGP Policy | Peering Policy
Receive Bat Blue's Daily Security Intelligence Report
Bat Blue's Legal Notice
