I'm looking at cost effective replacements for MX80s with fairly pedestrian features. No BNG, CGNAT, etc. GRE and Flow yes.
That port config fsckery is odd though. Their docs show you can get 24 XE ports. (8 SFPP + 4*4 on the multi rate QFSP-28's). Is this not the case? Sent from my iPhone > On May 14, 2018, at 14:59, Fredrik Korsbäck <hu...@nordu.net> wrote: > > Its not a bigger 104. Its a new router completely. > > Good > * Junipers fastest router yet (yes) > * Good price > * Full MX featureset > * Small footprint > * EX and QFX can be run as fusiondevices to get more ports > > Bad > * Portconfig is weird. Sacrifice 100G to use SFP+. What is 3x100G + 8x10G > actually useful for? Limited usecase (we use them as CPEs for 100G customers) > * Only runs very modern Junos so dont come draggin with your favourite 14.3 > release. > > I like them but they are not fitting perfectly anywhere in my network other > then as CPEs. The lack of flexible I/O ports is a problem > > > Skickat från min iPhone > >> 14 maj 2018 kl. 23:11 skrev Mat Perkins <m...@instavps.com>: >> >> It's a bigger MX104, so just more slots same back plane capacity I believe. >> We use 104's and love them for smaller networks. >> >> Mat >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Bill Blackford <bblackf...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Anyone using MX204? >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Benefits / Drawbacks? >>> >>> Thank you in advance. >>> >>> B >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
