I've done L2VPN (Kompella), L2Ckt (Martini), VRF, full BGP routes, LDP, RSVP-TE on an MX960, and it all seems to 'work' so far. Done some QoS testing as well, though not yet finished. It too, seems to just 'work'. I haven't found much that I 'dislike' about it yet (other than the -R cards not showing ingress queue stats).
My biggest complaint about the MX line so far is the comparitively rediculous cost. At $100k for a 20-port E-Q-model Gig SFP line card for an MX480 (minus any heavy discounting), you can buy a fully populated box with twice the ports and all the functionality (minus Kompella-stuff) from other vendors, like Foundry's MLX or XMR lines (which, like any vendor, come with their own surmountable limitations). Makes for a tough sell sometimes. As several folks here have commented before though, if cost isn't an issue, I dunno why you wouldn't go with the MX if you're a Juniper fan (which I am). David On 07/11/2008, bill fumerola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 03:22:03PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote: >> > Basically, can someone give me reasons apart from "we don't need SONET >> > or any other WAN interfaces, and it's cheaper per port", why should we >> > NOT choose an MX box? Are there any gotchas waiting in the wings for >> > someone who's used to the full flavored goodness that is the M/T >> > series? >> >> Because it's expensive compared to possible alternatives outside >> J-Land, including, but not limited to, Force-10. > > force10's cost advantage is chipped away at by the OP's IPv6 requirement. > > -- bill > > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
