Juniper Networks describes their MX series as a robust portfolio of SDN-enabled routing platforms that provide system capacity, density, security, and performance with longevity. MX Series routers support digital transformation for service providers, cloud operators, and enterprises.
As an edge/WAN router that contains internet BGP routes, it handles this work very well. And the devices are robust, able to manage a significant load. However, the interface cost can be somewhat of a hindrance when wanting to use it to interconnect many metro clients.
It is well suited as a WAN/Internet Edge device. It is easy to configure BGP, contexts and routing instances. Its suite of tools has saved our organization money by being able to provide services (tag stacking, for example) that our provider would normally charge us more for. Due to interface cost this would not be appropriate as a LAN aggregation device.
I would like to able to find more examples of configs. Given the multiple ways to configure the same setting, having a little more documentation would be helpful.
Juniper support is friendly, easy to understand, widely knowledgeable, and easy to get ahold of. I did not give them a higher rating as some of my more complex issues, were solved by myself while under consultation from Juniper TAC.
The simplicity, elegance, and robustness of Juniper's solution make it much easier to troubleshoot and configure, when compared to Cisco Routers, especially considering Cisco's implementation of BGP (why are IPv4 and IPv6 linked in Cisco configuration?). Furthermore, the implementation of commit and rollback cannot be understated when compared to the Cisco solutions. This feature is a huge time saver when attempting to troubleshoot and remote configuration instances.
We preferred Juniper over Cisco for our WAN/Internet routing needs for a number of reasons. First was the price, the Juniper offering was much more competitive than Cisco's. Secondly, was feature set, Juniper's implementation of routing protocols, routing tables, and forwarding options are better thought-out than Cisco's (not to mention Juniper's longstanding use of commit/confirm/rollback features, which Cisco has only started to use recently, and only on some of their products).
The stability and robustness of this solution provide a rock-solid foundation for all of our internet traffic.
The easy to use rollback and commit features simplifies remote administration and configuration, alleviating the need to travel to remote installation sites.
Its flexible architecture and configuration styles has saved our organization money by providing feature we would have otherwise needed to purchase from our ISPs.
It has a long and healthy lifecycle, with potential upgrades for more performance if needed. (This helps alleviate the downtime associated with chassis replacement.)
The only drawback is some of the highest throughput interfaces are expensive.
