Juniper M120 Alternatives
oberman at es.net
Mon Nov 16 11:18:03 CST 2009
> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:14:52 -0000 (GMT)
> From: "Gary Mackenzie" <net-ops at monolith-networks.net>
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder at 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.
We use them as peering routers and are in the process of upgrading all
of our peering routers to MX boxes.
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman at es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
More information about the NANOG