Re: Juniper MX Sizing

[Bill Blackford <bblackford () gmail com>]

If you're looking at scaling passed the mx104, I would consider the mx480
chassis. The price delta between the 240 vs. 480 bare chassis is negligible
and you'll get more slots to grow into. Especially, if you have a need to
do sampling or anything else that may require a service pic.
On Dec 5, 2014 9:02 AM, "Graham Johnston" <johnstong () westmancom com> wrote:

> I am wondering if anyone can provide their real world experience about
> sizing Juniper MX routers as it relates to BGP.  I am needing a device that
> has a mix of layer 2 and 3 features, including MPLS, that will have a very
> low port count requirement that will primarily be used at a remote POP site
> to connect to the local IX as well as one or two full route transit
> providers.  The MX104 has what I need from a physical standpoint and a data
> plane standpoint, as well as power consumption figures.  My only concern is
> whether the REs have enough horsepower to churn through the convergence
> calculations at a rate that operators in this situation would find
> acceptable.  I realize that 'acceptable' is a moving target so I would
> happily accept feedback from people using them as to how long it takes and
> their happiness with the product.
>
> For those of you that deem the MX104 unacceptable in this kind of role and
> moved up to the MX240, what RE did you elect to use?
>
> Thanks,
> Graham Johnston
> Network Planner
> Westman Communications Group
> 204.717.2829
> johnstong () westmancom com<mailto:johnstong () westmancom com>
> P think green; don't print this email.