On 10/Apr/18 05:07, Chris via juniper-nsp wrote:
> > I can't speak for the MX240, but we have some deployments of the > MX104, MX80 and the vMX. > > For the MX104 (and the MX80) the main limitation they have is that the > CPU on the routing engine is terribly slow. This can be a problem for > you if you are taking multiple full tables with BGP. Even without > taking full tables, the RE CPU on the MX104's I have is basically > always at 100%. Commits are pretty slow as well. This shouldn't be > such an issue with the MX240 as it has a wider range of routing > engines available with much better specs. We've discontinued all our MX80's - moved those to MX480's. We are in the process of ditching all our MX104's. Most likely move those to MX480's as well. We got a lot of life out of our MX80's... ran them since 2012. Shame though about the MX104's, only had those in since 2016. I can't fault the MX80; it did what it was designed to do. But the MX104 was, basically, a very poor decision from Juniper. I hope it's haunting at least one person there never to repeat such in the future. You can't play games with your customers like that... Mark. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
