I'd say wait for MX80 to come out, and then compare the two. The MX80 will have a much more attractive price point than the MX240. Then you can have a decent comparison between say an MLX-4 and an MX80.
Sincerely, David Kotlerewsky Sr. Systems Engineer InterVision Systems Technologies, Inc. www.intervision.com On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Debbie Fligor <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 7, 2010, at 6:21, Scott T. Cameron wrote: > > > > > On the MLX side of things. With a rather large Foundry switching > environment, I and my team are very comfortable on that platform. The > switches just work, and the strangest problem I have seen interop problems > with a Cisco -- and I blame Cisco for that. We have had some struggles > using the Foundry ServerIron due to a few bugs here and there. I do, > however, expect that a full layer3 stack is significantly less complicated > of code than what the ServerIron is able to do, so should have less bugs. > > > > > Our backbone (core and distribution layers) are MLX routers (I'm at the > Urbana campus). Our regional network that connects the three campuses are > also MLX routers. I would not suggest you assume fewer bugs than you've seen > in the ServerIrons. > > We see much fewer headaches with their L2 devices typically than with their > L3 devices, but we've moved to HP over the years for price/performance for > most of our L2 access ports. Our experience with BGP and OSPF is that those > protocols are pretty solid. ACLs are buggy, at least if you use them on a > ve instead of a physical port, and PIM/MSDP is one of those things you keep > your fingers crossed about with every single software upgrade, hoping that > they fix more things than they break and that they will move forward in > being fully standards compliant. mBGP (for multicast) is hit and miss, at > least on our MPLS based regional network. Some of that is config choices we > made, some is their (apparent) lack of QA for anything multicast. > > they are fast hardware switching, and they reboot fast though and they're > usually pretty good about fixing problems once you finally nail down what > the problem is. I'll echo what someone else said, if your needs are simple, > they'll probably work fine. I can't honestly recommend them if you run PIM > or MSDP however, that has been (and still is) a nightmare to keep working > correctly. > > I can't compare to the Juniper MX, we've not got any of those. > > ----- > -debbie > Debbie Fligor, n9dn Network Engineer, CITES, Univ. of Il > email: [email protected] <http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/fligor> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundry-nsp mailing list > [email protected] > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp >
_______________________________________________ foundry-nsp mailing list [email protected] http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
