2011/6/26 Mark Tinka <mti...@globaltransit.net> > On Monday, June 27, 2011 06:56:48 AM Keegan Holley wrote: > > > I think the general attitude is positive towards them. > > They are a good compliment to the M/T series and > > generally solid flexible boxes. You should probably > > include how you plan to use them in your question. For > > example a few list members complain about multicast/IGMP > > bugs and other issues with the new trio based cards and > > some of the new code. If you don't run alot of > > multicast these wouldn't really apply to you. > > For us, we use them heavily in the edge, and that hasn't > been the smoothest of rides. > > My guess is if you need them for peering or in the core, you > might have less issues, but not necessarily (we already know > of core applications where the MX could be troublesome - but > the edge role takes the cake, by far). > > Please elaborate. This is interesting since most edge boxes have the fewest features configured. Is this an metro-e edge or just vanilla IP? V4/v6?
> There are also some limitations, so far, if we use them as > BRAS's, but these are mostly bugs are feature unavailability > Other than the obvious I'm at a loss for the definition of "BRAS". > at this time. The problem is that without the feature being > present today, it's hard to know how the box will scale, > which could be a big problem unto itself. > > All in all, it depends on the complexity/sophistication of > your deployment, the role you're placing the MX in, and what > features you're going to need. For some folk, it's the > perfect box. For others, it's less so. > > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
