[176605] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper MX Sizing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (james jones)
Fri Dec 5 12:28:44 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <F7AC5B23-A2C0-437F-81DD-A37AC0F22975@rice.edu>
From: james jones <james@freedomnet.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:27:56 -0500
To: Jason Bothe <jason@rice.edu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
If you are looking for small foot print I +1 the 240s.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Jason Bothe <jason@rice.edu> wrote:
> Graham,
>
> We use both the MX240 and MX480 (for 100G) 1800REs. Very happy with this
> hardware.
>
> Jason Bothe, Manager of Networking
>
> o +1 713 348 5500
> m +1 713 703 3552
> jason@rice.edu
>
>
>
>
> On 5, Dec 2014, at 10:59 AM, Graham Johnston <johnstong@westmancom.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I am wondering if anyone can provide their real world experience about
> sizing Juniper MX routers as it relates to BGP. I am needing a device that
> has a mix of layer 2 and 3 features, including MPLS, that will have a very
> low port count requirement that will primarily be used at a remote POP site
> to connect to the local IX as well as one or two full route transit
> providers. The MX104 has what I need from a physical standpoint and a data
> plane standpoint, as well as power consumption figures. My only concern is
> whether the REs have enough horsepower to churn through the convergence
> calculations at a rate that operators in this situation would find
> acceptable. I realize that 'acceptable' is a moving target so I would
> happily accept feedback from people using them as to how long it takes and
> their happiness with the product.
> >
> > For those of you that deem the MX104 unacceptable in this kind of role
> and moved up to the MX240, what RE did you elect to use?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Graham Johnston
> > Network Planner
> > Westman Communications Group
> > 204.717.2829
> > johnstong@westmancom.com<mailto:johnstong@westmancom.com>
> > P think green; don't print this email.
> >
> >
>
>
