Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

Juniper M120 Alternatives

 

 

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


net-ops at monolith-networks

Nov 16, 2009, 7:54 AM

Post #1 of 24 (1828 views)
Permalink
Juniper M120 Alternatives

Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers
these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M
series routers?

I'm asking as the prices to upgrade to 10Gbit capable Juniper units (ie.
an M120) seem prohibitively high so I'm looking to get a feel for the
alternatives. The other obvious platform would appear to be a Cisco XR
12404 (or similar depending on line card requirements) but is anything
else in common use as a peering platform?

Cheers for any input.

Rgds

Gary


dwcarder at wisc

Nov 16, 2009, 8:04 AM

Post #2 of 24 (1794 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:

> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers
> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M
> series routers?

have you looked at the MX series?

Dale


cgrundemann at gmail

Nov 16, 2009, 8:08 AM

Post #3 of 24 (1793 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder [at] wisc> wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
>
>> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers
>> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M
>> series routers?
>
> have you looked at the MX series?

+1
~Chris

>
> Dale
>
>

--
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org


sthaug at nethelp

Nov 16, 2009, 8:10 AM

Post #4 of 24 (1794 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers
> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M
> series routers?

Juniper MX series? Works great for us. Much nicer 10G prices than M120.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug [at] nethelp


bdfleming at kanren

Nov 16, 2009, 8:14 AM

Post #5 of 24 (1795 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

I'd think the Juniper MX series might fit, as well as the Brocade
NetIron XMR. And of course the Cisco you already mentioned.

-brad

On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:

> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering
> routers
> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to
> Juniper M
> series routers?
>
> I'm asking as the prices to upgrade to 10Gbit capable Juniper units
> (ie.
> an M120) seem prohibitively high so I'm looking to get a feel for the
> alternatives. The other obvious platform would appear to be a Cisco XR
> 12404 (or similar depending on line card requirements) but is anything
> else in common use as a peering platform?
>
> Cheers for any input.
>
> Rgds
>
> Gary
>
>
>


net-ops at monolith-networks

Nov 16, 2009, 8:14 AM

Post #6 of 24 (1789 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder [at] wisc> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>>> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering
>>> routers
>>> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper
>>> M
>>> series routers?
>>
>> have you looked at the MX series?
>
> +1
> ~Chris
>
>>
>> Dale
>>

I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering
routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and PE
router roles but never as border routers.

If there is some precedent for using them in this role that's good to hear
and I'll take another look, I was loath to move away from Juniper as our
current boxes are been the model of reliability.

Cheers

Gary


sthaug at nethelp

Nov 16, 2009, 8:37 AM

Post #7 of 24 (1785 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

> I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering
> routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and PE
> router roles but never as border routers.

We use MX series as peering routers. They work very well.

Steinar Haug, AS 2116


jason at lixfeld

Nov 16, 2009, 8:55 AM

Post #8 of 24 (1785 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

Cisco's ASR9000 is supposed to be in-line with the Juniper MX offering
(price-wise and feature-wise); more so than as 124xx, I hear.

On 2009-11-16, at 10:54 AM, "Gary Mackenzie" <net-ops [at] monolith-networks
> wrote:

> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering
> routers
> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to
> Juniper M
> series routers?
>
> I'm asking as the prices to upgrade to 10Gbit capable Juniper units
> (ie.
> an M120) seem prohibitively high so I'm looking to get a feel for the
> alternatives. The other obvious platform would appear to be a Cisco XR
> 12404 (or similar depending on line card requirements) but is anything
> else in common use as a peering platform?
>
> Cheers for any input.
>
> Rgds
>
> Gary
>
>


tore at linpro

Nov 16, 2009, 9:04 AM

Post #9 of 24 (1784 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

* Gary Mackenzie

> I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering
> routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and
> PE router roles but never as border routers.

We've been using the MX-es as border routers for some time now. It's a
role that suits them very well in my opinion, no problems at all so far.
I'll be very surprised if we don't end up using MX-es in our next PoP
as well.

Best regards,
--
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Tel: +47 21 54 41 27


oberman at es

Nov 16, 2009, 9:18 AM

Post #10 of 24 (1785 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:14:52 -0000 (GMT)
> From: "Gary Mackenzie" <net-ops [at] monolith-networks>
>
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder [at] wisc> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
> >>
> >>> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering
> >>> routers
> >>> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper
> >>> M
> >>> series routers?
> >>
> >> have you looked at the MX series?
> >
> > +1
> > ~Chris
> >
> >>
> >> Dale
> >>
>
> I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering
> routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and PE
> router roles but never as border routers.
>
> If there is some precedent for using them in this role that's good to hear
> and I'll take another look, I was loath to move away from Juniper as our
> current boxes are been the model of reliability.

We use them as peering routers and are in the process of upgrading all
of our peering routers to MX boxes.
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman [at] es Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751


net-ops at monolith-networks

Nov 16, 2009, 11:00 AM

Post #11 of 24 (1782 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

Thanks everybody for the feedback. I'll likely be getting a few quotes for
MX series boxes I think, we're in the happy position of having a
completely e-net infrastructure so we're not limited by interface options.

Thanks again for recommendation, good to know other people are using them
successfully.

Cheers

Gary

> MX uses the I-Chip same as on M120/320 series. MX would be perfect for
> any
> location in the network P/PE if you are talking about E-Net services vs.
> TDM. They would be a perfect peering box if you are using E-Net.
>
>
> On 11/16/09 10:14 AM, "Gary Mackenzie" <net-ops [at] monolith-networks>
> wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder [at] wisc>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering
>>>>> routers
>>>>> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to
>>>>> Juniper
>>>>> M
>>>>> series routers?
>>>>
>>>> have you looked at the MX series?
>>>
>>> +1
>>> ~Chris
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dale
>>>>
>>
>> I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering
>> routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and PE
>> router roles but never as border routers.
>>
>> If there is some precedent for using them in this role that's good to
>> hear
>> and I'll take another look, I was loath to move away from Juniper as our
>> current boxes are been the model of reliability.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>
>
> ***************************************************************************************
> The information contained in this message, including attachments, may
> contain
> privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered
> only to the
> person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the
> person
> responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient,
> Windstream requests
> that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the
> message or its
> attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to
> anyone else.
>


mehmet at akcin

Nov 16, 2009, 12:02 PM

Post #12 of 24 (1780 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

Remember to request some quotes for MX-80, not yet released , soon to be out "lower end" routers.

and MX240 3Ds.

http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/mx240/

Normally Juniper sales guys don't quote you things that are coming out soon unless you specially ask for this.

mehmet

On Nov 16, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:

> Thanks everybody for the feedback. I'll likely be getting a few quotes for
> MX series boxes I think, we're in the happy position of having a
> completely e-net infrastructure so we're not limited by interface options.
>
> Thanks again for recommendation, good to know other people are using them
> successfully.
>
> Cheers
>
> Gary
>
>> MX uses the I-Chip same as on M120/320 series. MX would be perfect for
>> any
>> location in the network P/PE if you are talking about E-Net services vs.
>> TDM. They would be a perfect peering box if you are using E-Net.
>>
>>
>> On 11/16/09 10:14 AM, "Gary Mackenzie" <net-ops [at] monolith-networks>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder [at] wisc>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering
>>>>>> routers
>>>>>> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to
>>>>>> Juniper
>>>>>> M
>>>>>> series routers?
>>>>>
>>>>> have you looked at the MX series?
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>> ~Chris
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dale
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering
>>> routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and PE
>>> router roles but never as border routers.
>>>
>>> If there is some precedent for using them in this role that's good to
>>> hear
>>> and I'll take another look, I was loath to move away from Juniper as our
>>> current boxes are been the model of reliability.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ***************************************************************************************
>> The information contained in this message, including attachments, may
>> contain
>> privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered
>> only to the
>> person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the
>> person
>> responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient,
>> Windstream requests
>> that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the
>> message or its
>> attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to
>> anyone else.
>>
>
>
>


leslie at craigslist

Nov 16, 2009, 1:20 PM

Post #13 of 24 (1784 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Gary Mackenzie
>
>> I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering
>> routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and
>> PE router roles but never as border routers.
>
> We've been using the MX-es as border routers for some time now. It's a
> role that suits them very well in my opinion, no problems at all so far.
> I'll be very surprised if we don't end up using MX-es in our next PoP
> as well.
>
> Best regards,

We're using them as border routers and love them. As long as you don't
need sonet, i think it's a great choice.

Leslie


dr at cluenet

Nov 16, 2009, 4:28 PM

Post #14 of 24 (1769 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 06:04:46PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> We've been using the MX-es as border routers for some time now. It's a
> role that suits them very well in my opinion, no problems at all so far.

Caveat: no MAC accounting on LAGs (IEEE speak) / Aggregated Ethernet (Juniper
speak) / Etherchannels (Cisco speak).

Might or might not be important when using bundled links to public
peering fabrics.

Best regards,
Daniel

PS: and of course JUNOS still undeterministically resetting unrelated BGP
sessions for no good reason when modifying BGP configuration - so one is
well-advised to do ANY configuration changes in the area of BGP within a
maint window as it might happen that you configure a peering session and
whoops there goes your IBGP mesh... or all your other peerings, or, ...
</rant>

--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr [at] cluenet -- dr [at] IRCne -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0


randy at psg

Nov 16, 2009, 8:04 PM

Post #15 of 24 (1768 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

> PS: and of course JUNOS still undeterministically resetting unrelated BGP
> sessions for no good reason when modifying BGP configuration

cisco is deterministic. breathe on it and all sessions reset.

randy


ras at e-gerbil

Nov 16, 2009, 8:46 PM

Post #16 of 24 (1767 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 01:28:06AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> PS: and of course JUNOS still undeterministically resetting unrelated
> BGP sessions for no good reason when modifying BGP configuration - so
> one is well-advised to do ANY configuration changes in the area of BGP
> within a maint window as it might happen that you configure a peering
> session and whoops there goes your IBGP mesh... or all your other
> peerings, or, ...

Well to be fair, the session resetting on config change behavior is
actually quite deterministic (being EASY to determine is not part of the
requirements, technically speaking :P), and most of the resets really do
have perfectly good reasons. I'll certainly go with "really annoying and
often a giant pain in the @#$%^&*" though.

They've definitely been improving it over the years though, so much that
I almost never trigger a session reset on me unintentionally any more.
The things to watch out for are:

a) any time you change the update replication by moving a neighbor
between groups, renaming groups, or significantly changing the export
policy chain.

b) any time you change a major part of the underlying interface
configuration for an eBGP session, such as mtu or vlan tagging config.

c) any time you change something about the bgp session which really does
require a session reset to take effect, such as a new ASN, new endpoint
address, new mbgp family configuration, new md5 password, new tcp mss,
etc.

You can actually safeguard yourself from a lot of the accidental reset
behaviors while implementing other features at the same time by using
commit scripts (i.e. as a side-effect of my scripts which exist for
other reasons, I automatically protect myself against changes to the
policy chain or family configuration which might cause unintended
session flaps), though I'll certainly admit this is well into the
category of "power user" and not appropriate for most people. They are
making some progress though, you can actually turn NSR on and off now
without flapping your sessions, which is certainly an improvement over
the serious logic flaws in earlier versions (where you couldn't turn off
NSR without flapping every session, but you also couldn't commit w/NSR
enabled and the backup RE offline, effectively locking you out of config
changes without a total box flap if you didn't have both RE's running).

It would certainly be a lot more user friendly if they could tell you
what sessions would be reset as part of a "commit check" process though.

--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras [at] e-gerbil> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)


jbates at brightok

Nov 17, 2009, 7:24 AM

Post #17 of 24 (1742 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> They've definitely been improving it over the years though, so much that
> I almost never trigger a session reset on me unintentionally any more.

They must have. This was new to me and came as a shock. I don't think
I've ever seen my m120 behave any different than my cisco when it comes
to flapping BGP. Things have just worked as I expected them to. Not that
I go screwing with underlying interface configs or changing a peer from
one group to another or changing the asn; at least not on a live
session. These things would seem to indicate that the session might be
subject to reset.

Perhaps it just behaves for normal users and not power users. :)

Jack


pl+list at pmacct

Nov 17, 2009, 8:10 AM

Post #18 of 24 (1750 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 01:28:06AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:

> Caveat: no MAC accounting on LAGs (IEEE speak) / Aggregated Ethernet (Juniper
> speak) / Etherchannels (Cisco speak).
>
> Might or might not be important when using bundled links to public
> peering fabrics.

Or for the very same goal, vendors can maybe think at making support
for L2 primitives via NetFlow v9 exports somewhat more implemented.

Cheers,
Paolo


ras at e-gerbil

Nov 17, 2009, 9:32 AM

Post #19 of 24 (1740 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:24:24AM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> >They've definitely been improving it over the years though, so much that
> >I almost never trigger a session reset on me unintentionally any more.
>
> They must have. This was new to me and came as a shock. I don't think
> I've ever seen my m120 behave any different than my cisco when it comes
> to flapping BGP. Things have just worked as I expected them to. Not that
> I go screwing with underlying interface configs or changing a peer from
> one group to another or changing the asn; at least not on a live
> session. These things would seem to indicate that the session might be
> subject to reset.
>
> Perhaps it just behaves for normal users and not power users. :)

But those things won't trigger session resets on Cisco, so it often comes
as a shock. Also, one might very well expect that changing the peer-as on
a neighbor is going to cause a reset, but if you didn't know from
experience you might not expect that renaming a group or changing an
underlying interface MTU would do it too.

The issue is that there is a fundamental design difference between Cisco
and Juniper. Cisco lets you configure anything you want in a line by line
basis, but it doesn't immediately apply those changes until you command
it to do so. Juniper's philosophy is that you make a bunch of changes to
a candiate configuration, "commit" to apply those changes, and then you
can expect those changes to take effect (or at least begin trying to take
effect) immediately.

Personally I think the Juniper design philosophy is "better". Besides the
obvious stuff like being able to rollback your config, think about how
non-deterministic it is when you update a route-map but forget to soft
clear the BGP session. The routes that have been exchanged so far will
retain their old policy, while any new updates you receive after the
route-map change will receive the new policy, leaving the session in an
inconsistent state that will slowly and unpredictably change over time as
routing updates come in. The trade-off is that you lose the ability to do
non-impacting changes, where you make a change but know that it hasn't
actually taken effect yet, and won't until the next time the session
bounces. What Juniper is trying to do really is a good thing, I just wish
it could tell me before I commit what is and isn't going to flap. :)

--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras [at] e-gerbil> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)


paul.cosgrove.nanog at gmail

Nov 18, 2009, 6:04 AM

Post #20 of 24 (1688 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras [at] e-gerbil>wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:24:24AM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> > Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > >They've definitely been improving it over the years though, so much that
> > >I almost never trigger a session reset on me unintentionally any more.
> >
> > They must have. This was new to me and came as a shock. I don't think
> > I've ever seen my m120 behave any different than my cisco when it comes
> > to flapping BGP. Things have just worked as I expected them to. Not that
> > I go screwing with underlying interface configs or changing a peer from
> > one group to another or changing the asn; at least not on a live
> > session. These things would seem to indicate that the session might be
> > subject to reset.
> >
> > Perhaps it just behaves for normal users and not power users. :)
>
> But those things won't trigger session resets on Cisco, so it often comes
> as a shock. Also, one might very well expect that changing the peer-as on
> a neighbor is going to cause a reset, but if you didn't know from
> experience you might not expect that renaming a group or changing an
> underlying interface MTU would do it too.
>
> The issue is that there is a fundamental design difference between Cisco
> and Juniper. Cisco lets you configure anything you want in a line by line
> basis, but it doesn't immediately apply those changes until you command
> it to do so. Juniper's philosophy is that you make a bunch of changes to
> a candiate configuration, "commit" to apply those changes, and then you
> can expect those changes to take effect (or at least begin trying to take
> effect) immediately.
>
> Personally I think the Juniper design philosophy is "better". Besides the
> obvious stuff like being able to rollback your config, think about how
> non-deterministic it is when you update a route-map but forget to soft
> clear the BGP session. The routes that have been exchanged so far will
> retain their old policy, while any new updates you receive after the
> route-map change will receive the new policy, leaving the session in an
> inconsistent state that will slowly and unpredictably change over time as
> routing updates come in. The trade-off is that you lose the ability to do
> non-impacting changes, where you make a change but know that it hasn't
> actually taken effect yet, and won't until the next time the session
> bounces. What Juniper is trying to do really is a good thing, I just wish
> it could tell me before I commit what is and isn't going to flap. :)
>
>
>
The design differences you describe there relate more to traditional IOS vs
JUNOS, rather than IOS XR vs JUNOS. IOS XR uses candidate configurations,
commit, rollback etc.

Paul.


phil.pierotti at gmail

Nov 18, 2009, 1:08 PM

Post #21 of 24 (1684 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

That's excellent news - any word on when Cisco will be back-porting these
truly useful features from XR to that platform which so many of us are still
running on (ie "traditional IOS")?

Phil P

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Paul Cosgrove <
paul.cosgrove.nanog [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras [at] e-gerbil
> >wrote:
> The design differences you describe there relate more to traditional IOS vs
> JUNOS, rather than IOS XR vs JUNOS. IOS XR uses candidate configurations,
> commit, rollback etc.
>
> Paul.
>


sthaug at nethelp

Nov 18, 2009, 1:32 PM

Post #22 of 24 (1685 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

> That's excellent news - any word on when Cisco will be back-porting these
> truly useful features from XR to that platform which so many of us are still
> running on (ie "traditional IOS")?

Obviously not speaking for Cisco here - but as a significant customer
we have had no indication that this will happen, ever.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug [at] nethelp


tvarriale at comcast

Nov 18, 2009, 4:01 PM

Post #23 of 24 (1681 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

As a side note that many may be aware of, there are other Cisco
products/code bases that have these nice features.

tv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Cosgrove" <paul.cosgrove.nanog [at] gmail>
To: "Richard A Steenbergen" <ras [at] e-gerbil>
Cc: <nanog [at] nanog>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives

> The design differences you describe there relate more to traditional IOS
> vs
> JUNOS, rather than IOS XR vs JUNOS. IOS XR uses candidate configurations,
> commit, rollback etc.
>
> Paul.


jbates at brightok

Nov 19, 2009, 6:19 AM

Post #24 of 24 (1665 views)
Permalink
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives [In reply to]

Phil Pierotti wrote:
> That's excellent news - any word on when Cisco will be back-porting these
> truly useful features from XR to that platform which so many of us are still
> running on (ie "traditional IOS")?
>

The general feeling is that XR won't be ported to a lot of existing
hardware, and traditional IOS is just royally screwed (see 12.3T EOL'd
and 12.4 bloated and full of bugs, and everything older missing critical
PE functionality for unnumbered vlans).


Jack (disliking all vendors when it comes to the edge right now)

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.