Yes, I'd go for MX240 and upper, as you could grow them redundantly and also in memory in the future.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mehmet Akcin Sent: domingo, 26 de junio de 2011 11:25 p.m. To: Ryan Finnesey Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [j-nsp] What do you think about the MX line? you probably want MX240-480-960s rather. mehmet On Jun 26, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote: > We are looking at the MX80s for about 60GB of traffic with also some private > MLPS interconnection. > Cheers > Ryan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Timothy Kaufman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:49 PM > To: Ryan Finnesey; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] What do you think about the MX line? > > Which one are you looking at? > How many peers do you plan to configure? > How much traffic? > Thanks > > Tim Kaufman > Sent via blackberry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun Jun 26 22:15:34 2011 > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] What do you think about the MX line? > > For us I will be looking at the MX Line mainly for peering. Anyone having > issues with using them with peering? > > Cheers > Ryan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka > Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 9:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] What do you think about the MX line? > > On Monday, June 27, 2011 06:56:48 AM Keegan Holley wrote: > >> I think the general attitude is positive towards them. >> They are a good compliment to the M/T series and generally solid >> flexible boxes. You should probably include how you plan to use them >> in your question. For example a few list members complain about >> multicast/IGMP bugs and other issues with the new trio based cards and > >> some of the new code. If you don't run alot of multicast these >> wouldn't really apply to you. > > For us, we use them heavily in the edge, and that hasn't been the smoothest > of rides. > > My guess is if you need them for peering or in the core, you might have less > issues, but not necessarily (we already know of core applications where the > MX could be troublesome - but the edge role takes the cake, by far). > > There are also some limitations, so far, if we use them as BRAS's, but these > are mostly bugs are feature unavailability at this time. The problem is that > without the feature being present today, it's hard to know how the box will > scale, which could be a big problem unto itself. > > All in all, it depends on the complexity/sophistication of your deployment, > the role you're placing the MX in, and what features you're going to need. > For some folk, it's the perfect box. For others, it's less so. > > Mark. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
