[143546] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Experience with Juniper MX-80s
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Blackford)
Thu Aug 11 21:01:43 2011
In-Reply-To: <AA26B67F-5D1B-4C8B-BE78-561694043AAA@smtps.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:01:00 -0700
From: Bill Blackford <bblackford@gmail.com>
To: Brian Keefer <chort@smtps.net>
Cc: bpasdar@batblue.com, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I'm probably way off here, but: Imagine an MX with a single RE, 1
MX-MPC2-3D-Q that can be populated with your choice of MICs in FPC-1
and 1 MIC-3D-4XGE-XFP in FPC-0. But, they run a little hot.
-b
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Brian Keefer <chort@smtps.net> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 6:43 AM, Babak Pasdar wrote:
>
>> Hello NANOG Group,
>>
>> I am curious if anyone has any experiences positive or negative with Jun=
iper MX-80s. =A0Our recent experience with Juniper has not been great both =
in terms of new product offerings (SRX) and software bugs in the recent rev=
s of Junos for the MX platform. =A0I want to know if the MX-80 functions as=
advertised and in specific can properly handle two full IPv4 and IPv6 BGP =
feeds
>
>
> I'm curious about these too. =A0Specifically, does anyone have experience=
/thoughts on the anti-DDoS features? =A0I know there are scenarios it would=
n't begin to address, but are they worth spending time to fiddle with? =A0A=
lso, is anyone taking JFlow off of them? =A0We're trying to figure out how =
much we could sample while doing about 900Mbps. =A0I'm not sure what our PP=
S looks like off the top of my head.
>
> TIA.
>
> --
> chort
>
>
>
--=20
Bill Blackford
Network Engineer
Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges.....
