Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives

["Kevin Oberman" <oberman () es net>]

> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:14:52 -0000 (GMT)
> From: "Gary Mackenzie" <net-ops () monolith-networks net>
>
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder () wisc edu> wrote:
> > > On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
> > >
> > > > Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering
> > > > routers
> > > > these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper
> > > > M
> > > > series routers?
> > >
> > > have you looked at the MX series?
> >
> > +1
> > ~Chris
> >
> > > Dale
>
> I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering
> routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and PE
> router roles but never as border routers.
>
> If there is some precedent for using them in this role that's good to hear
> and I'll take another look, I was loath to move away from Juniper as our
> current boxes are been the model of reliability.

We use them as peering routers and are in the process of upgrading all
of our peering routers to MX boxes.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman () es net                       Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751