Overall Satisfaction with Juniper MX Series
The Juniper MX series serves as our core WAN routers, every bit of internet bound traffic flows over these devices. Any disruption with these devices and our user base immediately notice it. It is imperative that these devices are stable and secure, and continue to function.
- It's a robust platform, very resilient. It handles large traffic flows well.
- It's a flexible architecture, it can be configured with provider or enterprise options (or both!)
- It has an excellent versioning system, simple commit/confirm/rollback procedures!
- Sometimes I wish that documentation was more robust, complete, though this has been improved of late.
- It would be nice if netflow was easier to configure.
- It would be nice if the platform was cheaper.
- 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.
- Cisco 1000 Series Aggregation Services Routers (ASR 1000)
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).
Do you think Juniper MX Series delivers good value for the price?
Yes
Are you happy with Juniper MX Series's feature set?
Yes
Did Juniper MX Series live up to sales and marketing promises?
Yes
Did implementation of Juniper MX Series go as expected?
Yes
Would you buy Juniper MX Series again?
Yes