Juniper hardware recommendation
mfiumano2 at gmail.com
Fri May 14 17:06:09 UTC 2021
If accurate interface stats are important to you, MX’s don’t support
accurate SNMP Interface Utilization, ie they don’t comply with
RFC2665/3635, which seems like a fairly basic thing to do but they decided
not to, and has been impactful to me in the past. So, any SNMP monitoring
of an interface will always show less utilization than what is actually
occurring, possibly leading to a false sense of security, or delay in
augmentation. Would also affect usage based billing, if you do that.
For M Series, T Series, and MX Series, the SNMP counters do not count the
Ethernet header and frame check sequence (FCS). Therefore, the Ethernet
header bytes and the FCS bytes are not included in the following four
*From:* NANOG *On Behalf Of *Mark Tinka
*Sent:* Monday, May 10, 2021 10:25 AM
*To:* nanog at nanog.org
*Subject:* Re: Juniper hardware recommendation
On 5/10/21 16:19, aaron1 at gvtc.com wrote:
I prefer MX204 over the ACX5048. The ACX5048 can’t add L3 interface to an
mpls layer 2 type of service. There are other limitations to the ACX5048
that cause me to want to possibly replace them with MX204’s. But in
defense of the ACX5048, we have gotten some good mileage (a few years now)
of good resi/busi bb over vrf’s and also carrier ethernet for businesses
and lots of cell backhaul… so they are good for that. I’ve heard the
ACX5448 was even better.
Trio will always provide better features, but come with the price tag to
I’m looking at the MX240 for the SCB3E MPC10E hefty with 100 gig ports
You might want to look at the MX10003, in that case, as well. We are
deploying those for 100Gbps service (customer-facing). Works out cheaper
than offering 100Gbps service on the MX240/480/960 for the same task.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG