nanog mailing list archives
RE: Experience with Juniper MX-80s
From: Mark Meijerink <Mark.Meijerink () vancis nl>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:08:53 +0000
Babak, For one of our customers we run two MX-80's. Both with two full routing peers plus a lot of other smaller BGP peerings at a local IX. So far no strange behaviour or poor performance. Peerings are all IPv4 and IPv6. I don't know if you would need specific features but for the basic border router functionality it seems to perform as expected. Regards, Mark -----Original Message----- From: Babak Pasdar [mailto:bpasdar () batblue com] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:44 PM To: nanog () nanog org Subject: Experience with Juniper MX-80s Hello NANOG Group, I am curious if anyone has any experiences positive or negative with Juniper MX-80s. Our recent experience with Juniper has not been great both in terms of new product offerings (SRX) and software bugs in the recent revs of Junos for the MX platform. I want to know if the MX-80 functions as advertised and in specific can properly handle two full IPv4 and IPv6 BGP feeds Thanks in advance, Babak -- Babak Pasdar President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker Bat Blue Corporation | Integrity . Privacy . Availability . Performance (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (f) 212.584.9999 | (w) www.BatBlue.com Bat Blue is proud to be the Official WiFi Provider for ESPN's X Games Bat Blue's AS: 25885 | BGP Policy | Peering Policy Receive Bat Blue's Daily Security Intelligence Report Bat Blue's Legal Notice
Current thread:
- Experience with Juniper MX-80s Babak Pasdar (Aug 11)
- RE: Experience with Juniper MX-80s Mark Meijerink (Aug 11)
- Re: Experience with Juniper MX-80s Randy Bush (Aug 11)
- Re: Experience with Juniper MX-80s Brian Keefer (Aug 11)
- Re: Experience with Juniper MX-80s Bill Blackford (Aug 11)
- Re: Experience with Juniper MX-80s joshua sahala (Aug 12)