If you are looking for small foot print I +1 the 240s. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Jason Bothe <ja...@rice.edu> wrote:
> Graham, > > We use both the MX240 and MX480 (for 100G) 1800REs. Very happy with this > hardware. > > Jason Bothe, Manager of Networking > > o +1 713 348 5500 > m +1 713 703 3552 > ja...@rice.edu > > > > > On 5, Dec 2014, at 10:59 AM, Graham Johnston <johnst...@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 > > johnst...@westmancom.com<mailto:johnst...@westmancom.com> > > P think green; don't print this email. > > > > > >