Hi, Could you little bit elaborate more about the "advanced feature" which is lacking in MLX but available in MX?
Thanks, Regards, Samit Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 07:21:35AM -0400, Scott T. Cameron wrote: >> Some of the routing engine tasks done on the SRX series are really, >> really slow. I have my SRX series taking a full route table from my >> upstream providers today on BGP. This process can take about 5 >> minutes to complete. >> Obviously, this is insane. > > Heh yes SRX is painfully slow. I have an SRX210 in my basement for my > home connectivity and it takes a good 30 seconds to commit even a basic > config. We run MX's with 10k+ line configurations, a heavy dose of > commit scripts, and on-commit RE sync, and it only takes around 10 > seconds at maximum (on RE-2000). > >> How fast are the Juniper MX series at taking / injecting routes? How is the >> failover convergence? > > The juniper-nsp list is probably a better place for a detailed > discussion on this. Generally speaking Foundry is very "lightweight", so > it tends to perform quite well on CPU intensive tasks like this, but at > the expense of features and functionality. Feature-wise there is > absolutely no comparison, Foundry gets stomped hands down, but like I > said if you run a simple network and don't need advanced features > Foundry can become interesting based on price and the ability to > reliably deliver line-rate traffic (something that can't be said for > 6500/7600 :P). > >> For the CLI, I'm not sure that I like JunOS better than the IOS clone. >> My former career was entirely Cisco, so the IOS clone is like an old, >> familiar friend for me. I have more or less gotten over the learning >> curve with JunOS, though. And I do like it is a familiar FreeBSD >> system underneath, even allowing you to go in to a shell. > > Once you go JUNOS you can't go back. There are things we do with policy > statements and commit scripts that are worth their weight in gold, that > couldn't be duplicated under IOS let alone under Foundry if their lives > depended on it. But the learning curve is steep, and for people who are > more comfortable with IOS-like CLI Foundry can provide an acceptable > solution. For my needs (running a complex network) we found Foundry L3 > to be completely unworkable, and had to pull them. But we turned around > and sold our MLX's to a customer who had far simpler needs and they've > been quite happy. It entirely depends on your network and your needs. > >> Some of their "studies" show that the MX-series routers have some trouble >> during failover. I am taking it with a grain of salt, just curious of >> anyone has had those experiences. > > Cisco paid those guys a lot of money to write absolutely absurd bullshit > about the competition they are most afraid of, and MX certainly has them > running scared. There have been plenty of discussions on j-nsp about > exactly which parts are complete and total fabrications, you might want > to check the archives from "Miercom". > >> Last but not least, support. Both vendors have terrible technical >> support when you have a bug, in my experience. I loathe having to >> open a case. Is it different for support on the router series? > > Not that Juniper support is perfect (you'll find me ranting about it > quite a bit on j-nsp :P), but MX is handled by a completely different > support group from SRX/J-series (which is very enterprise support > focused, i.e. far more resources devoted to answering "RTFM" questions > :P). > _______________________________________________ foundry-nsp mailing list [email protected] http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
