Thank you all for all the information, and thank you Richard for taking the time to elaborate. We're going to use 9.3R4.4 mainly because of the E-EOL (and that fact that it has all the features we need :) ).
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:43 AM, Richard A Steenbergen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 03:39:32PM +0200, Andrei Radu wrote: >> Hello everybody, >> >> We will be installing our first Juniper MX960 router in the network. >> We were a 100% Cisco shop and this is our first Juniper router. The MX >> will be a P/PE node >> in a pretty standard MPLS backbone network surrounded by Cisco 7600 >> routers, running OSPF, MPLS/LDP, BGP and PIM sparse-mode, no layer 2 >> or layer 3 VPNs whatsoever. Equal cost load-balancing over multiple >> 10GE links is a must. Does anyone have a recommendation for a stable >> JunOS version to run ? I'm currently looking at 9.5 or 9.6, I see that >> 10.0 came out on the 4th of November but from our experience with >> Cisco IOS releases we are reluctant to use the latest & greatest >> release. > > For MX I'd say 9.3R4 for the conservative (we have loads of experience > running this, 9.3R3+ was the first release without major showstopper > bugs ON in well over a year before it, and 9.3R4 only made it better), > 9.4R3 for the middle of the road (we've been running this on many > routers for a few months now, only a relatively modest amount of grief > and probably nothing you'd notice if you have to ask this question), > 9.5R3 for the adventuresome (some major bugs in 9.5R1 but we're > currently baking 9.5R3 on a couple production routers and haven't seen > any issues thus far). 9.5 does have some scripting enhancements and > optimizations which are noticable, so if you're big on those it might be > worth a try. I don't currently have the testicular fortitude to try 9.6 > outside of the lab (where all the real bugs are found :P), though I am > looking forward to the ISSU support for RSVP. For the super conservative > 9.2R4 is relatively light on the pfe and counter bugs (unlike earier > revs of 9.2), but still has quite a few other unfixable issues until you > go to 9.3+ (like netconf and commit scripts will not play together at > all). > > I didn't used to put JUNOS in the "you should really wait until R3 > before you touch it" category, but given recent history I don't think > it's an irrational stance to take until they re-establish their track > record of putting out non catastrophically broken code on a regular > basis. > > -- > Richard A Steenbergen <[email protected]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) > -- Andrei "2+2=5, for extremely large values of 2 !" _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
