Jason, The MX Series is a very good choice for QoS, MPLS and BGP.
You will need to use Ethernet interfaces only ? Are you going (or thinking) to use Multicast Routing (heavy traffic) ? M-Serie ... I think ... has better tunnel (traffic) support because of the ASIC processing, using the new Multiservice PIC (til 10 Gbps - PC-MS-500-3) for PIM-SM for example. If you are going to use it ... please talk with your Juniper Sales Engineer, to check what is the better choice: MX or M-Serie. Att, > I've been looking for GSR12406 alternatives and first was led to the > M120, but then was led to the MX series. I need a device to fit into > a provider network at the edge, facing transit, peer, backbone and > core. Heavy layer 3, heavy BGP, heavy OSPF, no QoS, no MPLS (yet) - > just a big-ass router with lots of wire-speed interfaces at decent > bang for the buck. > > The MX seems to be excellent on paper - line rate DPCs, layer 2 and > layer 3 capable, JunOS, etc but everything I've read suggests that > it's positioned to be an MPLS box, and not a BGP box. Sure, it runs > JunOS so it can do BGP, but... > > I have a hard time believing the MX isn't crippled in some way, > because it seems to me that if it weren't, it would stand to > cannibalize the M Series market. > > Is the MX as good as it's cracked up to be? Is the only reason > Juniper isn't worried about cannibalization due to the fact that the > MX is Ethernet only where the M is mixed media? > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 2935 (20080310) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
