Juniper QFX Series Switches Reviews

I use Juniper QFX Series Switches just for layer 2 switches.

I'm not using layer 3 on Juniper QFX Series Switches; usually, I use MX series for layer 3. For layer 2, I think it's very simple on Juniper QFX Series Switches, just as other Juniper switches, it's quite easy and has many features that I can use on the layer 2 feature on Juniper QFX Series Switches.

The best feature of Juniper QFX Series Switches is the virtual chassis feature because it's very stable in my experience.

Juniper QFX Series Switches have positively impacted my organization because it's very helpful for customer connectivity. We've been using it for customer connections, and it's very stable. We can use it for a long time without any broken devices or errors on the system. It has helped me significantly with my network.

I don't think there's any improvement needed on Juniper QFX Series Switches, but I would like to see other cheaper plans for the license on the QFX series.

I started using Juniper QFX Series Switches from 2018, and that's about seven years.

The technical support of Juniper is very helpful because if we have some big issues, we can raise P1 or P2 tickets, and the response from Juniper is very fast. The technical support is very helpful because if the layer one technical support is not able to solve my issue, they will escalate, and that is very beneficial.

Positive

I find it very easy to install Juniper QFX Series Switches because the Juniper platform and the configuration is all the same with the Junos operating system. With the device, I just need to turn on the power and then configure the switches. It's very straightforward.

If the product is already in my hand and I have brought it into my room, I spend just around 15 minutes on the deployment of Juniper QFX Series Switches, but it depends on the type because some QFX models are very heavy and some are easy to install.

I do see a return on investment with Juniper QFX Series Switches because I can use this device for a long time, and it's still very stable until now. It's very cost-effective. Other brands might break after three or four years, but with Juniper, I can use it until now, around nine years, and it's still very usable and very stable.

Currently, we're not using enhanced security features such as MACsec on Juniper QFX Series Switches; we use other devices for security.

We're still not using automation for the QFX Series; it's still in development.

I have not used advanced telemetry and analysis in Juniper QFX Series Switches for now.

We don't utilize Juniper QFX Series Switches VXLAN support because we're still not using VXLAN; we have a legacy network.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Juniper QFX Series Switches an eight.

Normally this is not a small business. This is the enterprise business and service provider and large enterprise, particularly financial institutes. These are the core target areas where you can push and provide or quote this Juniper QFX Series Switches product. Small customers do not work with or require the QFX kind of functionality.

Juniper QFX Series Switches are very good data center switches, and they are the core part of their fabric. It's a very good solution with excellent performance. They are easy to use and flexible to deploy in any kind of environment. The Juniper QFX Series Switches is not one switch. When building a fabric, multiple switches must be implemented, including spine, leaf, and other components.

Regarding working in a data center environment, they are feature-rich. They work with EVPN solutions, providing a Layer 3 fabric, which is a very good capability. AI is not an integral part right now, so it should not be discussed here.

Juniper, specifically if observed, four routers are much more efficient than their counterparts. Cisco does not have the capabilities that Juniper routers, big routers such as PTX and MX have. In the data center part and switching part, Cisco and Juniper have equal functionality, but the complexity of Cisco ACI is higher than the Juniper EVPN. My personal opinion is that if anyone wants to work with a Layer 3 fabric in a data center, they should choose Juniper because working with ACI and APIC is very complex in the Cisco part.

It has been traditionally very easy to set up and work with. If you understand the requirements, use case, and desired functionality from those switches, you can implement them without issues.

Juniper has better performance than any other networking product as far as performance is concerned in the router area. In the switching part, Juniper and other vendors are somewhat equal. The main differentiator is price.

Scalability is very high. When building a fabric, you can add multiple leaf switches and multiple spine switches if required. For any kind of environment, this scalability is extensive. Scalability is not an issue unless you have a Google-sized data center.

Tech support is adequate. In fact, I would recommend it. Sometimes they are very aggressive, but it's part of the game. Sometimes parts are not available in stock, then you have to wait for replacement time. We can rate it as seven point five out of ten.

For setup, you must work closely with the customer. First step is identifying the power requirement, space requirement, cooling requirement, and ensuring all those are met and available. Then comes the connectivity requirement - whether the customer has enough connectivity in their data center and how many cables are required. These are prerequisites for deploying any solutions. Once these are met, we proceed with the deployment part of the switches and establish and configure the whole infrastructure. After that, we connect their actual workload to this new network and migration of the existing environment is also part of this exercise. This is a modular and step-by-step approach.

Customers typically work with a five-year plan. They plan on using their solution for five years. After five years, they might consider continuing with their existing solutions. The normal ROI customers work with is five years unless there is a major change in technology. Then they might opt for a change or refresh. Otherwise, they continue to use that. We have customers who started five years ago and are still using the same environment.

The price depends heavily upon the level of relationship you have with the OEM. We are a number one, tier-one partner of Juniper. Therefore, we normally get better discounts than with Cisco because we don't have the level one partnership with Cisco. Price is not the only factor. The relationship you have with your OEM is very important.

I personally prefer to work with Juniper switching and routing products as it suits my expertise.

Since its startup, when Juniper started to manufacture these products, we began deploying them. They are excellent in this domain. Traditionally, it was only the Layer 2 fabric. Now, in the last three to four years, they have developed EVPN and we can build a Layer 3 fabric in the data center. It's very good and easy to deploy.

For management, they work with Corero for bigger environments, providing telemetry. Before telemetry, it was only useful for ISP environments. For data center implementations, telemetry is not required. However, for Corero and Juniper combination, telemetry is very effective. We have deployed that for customers in ISP domain.

Regarding power requirements, whenever we provide a solution, we also provide the power specifications of these switches and routers. Customers normally arrange that before deploying and incorporating the equipment. For router configurations, they have four or five supplies. Multiple power supplies can be used for initial startup, but after the router is in production and working condition, they reduce their power requirement. This is the efficiency we achieve. Startup power is normally high in any environment or equipment, but afterward, it reduces automatically.

Juniper QFX Series Switches are very good. I personally recommend them with a rating of 8 out of 10. When comparing with other products, the rating might vary, but in general, if customers want to use Juniper QFX Series Switches, they can proceed with confidence as it's a good product.

Overall Rating: 8 out of 10

The QFX was used for Layer 2 connectivity and Layer3  VXLAN overly (ERB/CRB)  and DCI between the data center, and the virtual infrastructure. It was used for an IP fabric implementation as well. 

For storage switches only FCOE is support, where it don't have FC (Fiber channel support) like other vendor do, so i have arrange other vendor FC switches. 

Many customers prefer the QFX series over Cisco's Nexus series. They also appreciate the high density of ports the QFX series offers, such as 1/10/25G and 100/40G options on the same switch. Additionally, the QFX series boasts lower power consumption compared to competitor products.

One key advantage of the QFX series is that Juniper uses Broadcom chipsets in their switches. This offers several advantages, including better performance and cost-effectiveness.

I faced issues with the deployment and upgrade. In the QFX5110 series, features like ISSU and TSSQ should be improved. Upgrades should be smoother. 

Also, Juniper doesn't offer dedicated fiber connectivity for storage

This can be a pain when designing for Dell or other storage solutions that need dedicated switches. This functionality should be included in the QFX series.

Either enhancement would work. Or they could introduce a new product. Cisco and other vendors offer similar solutions.

I've been working with them for seven to eight years. 

It is a stable product.

In terms of performance, scalability, and other factors, I would rate them around eight out of ten. I've encountered a few issues during deployments based on customer experiences.

My first deployment was with the QFX5100-48S for a data center customer. I implemented layer-2 connectivity on them. Overall, I would say they're good for small-scale and medium scale so it seems these problems can persist for some time. However, the QFX series is still generally considered a good product and offers more flexibility than other options.

It's very scalable. I haven't heard any customer complaints about scalability. In my experience, even the QFX5110 series extends for many years without needing upgrades. This scalability solves the challenge of needing to upgrade due to unknown internal problems, even when the release is stable.

Usually, I don't face any challenges due to my expertise. 

Positive

I work with several Juniper solutions currently. For example, I designed a new data center solution for a customer using a Spine-Leaf architecture. The access layer will be handled by ACX switches in the metro area, which are working well. 

In the data center itself, I'm using MX2000s for Data Center interconnect, The ACX series is also a good option as it's a joint venture between Juniper and Mist Systems, combining the best of both companies' product lines. The new product ACX has which is temperature-hardened and ideal for network deployments.

I also work with the PTX series for core networks. I have one customer using PTXs, and two more customers considering switching from their current Ethernet switches to the ACX platform. This will allow them to extend their network from the legacy layer to EVPN, providing benefits like load balancing, scalability, and improved performance.

The initial setup is not too complex as Junos, which  is generally easy to use. You just need basic knowledge, itself is more data center focused. With good planning and tools like zero-touch programming, deployment can be fast. For IP fabric, with  juniper apstra Automation tools make deployment quite smooth.

Maintenance is a different story compared to upgrading one or two switches. It's similar to the MX series.

we are juniper partner , we do deployment for juniper products ourself. 

For partners and Juniper Networks itself, the QFX Series has significant value. However, customers sometimes face challenges, potentially due to misinformation from Juniper partners or sales representatives. 

Customers might start with a basic license and later need to upgrade to a more advanced one, often at full price, missing out on initial discounts. 

This pricing model applies to both the hardware and the software components, like advanced licensing, which doesn't have an easy upgrade path. It creates a financial burden when scaling up network capabilities.

Also, it's important to consider customer commitment and satisfaction. 

In my experience, the QFX Series excels in scalability. For instance, to utilize new features, additional licenses are required. If the initial device capability is denoted as 'X', for these new features, customers typically pay a cost of 'X plus 20%', approximately. This cost structure is similar across many enterprise-grade network platforms. However, for edge or top-of-rack switches, other models, like the EX4650, ACX7100. The challenges I've encountered include occasional difficulties with software upgrades.

Skilled personnel should be involved and have a well-planned approach. Test on virtual QFX before customer environments.

For large-scale deployments, consider using automation tools like Ansible, combined with Zero Touch Provisioning (ZTP) for efficiency. 

Additionally, using an  apstra for data center automation   can provide more flexibility and ease in deployment and management. It's crucial to have a well-thought-out strategy for both the hardware and software aspects of the network infrastructure.

It's not a bad product. I haven't had extensive experience, only about six to seven years, deploying it for a maximum of six to seven customers. So, I can't fairly rate it a ten out of ten due to my limited experience. I have been more familiar with M/MX/ACX/PTX  series architectures and E series for a long time.

So, overall, I would rate the solution an nine  out of ten.

We primarily use it for routing. All the traffic came through to the firewall from the WAN routers.

It's really easy to replicate rules. It's the one that I've used; it was CLI-based. You can implement a large set of rules with CLI. You can just copy a script and add additional changes to the source and destination on the part. And so it's easy to do large zone-based rules. 

There is room for improvement in GUI. 

I have experience with this product. 

It is an extremely stable solution, but there were a few instances when we created we did an upgrade, and the device did not come up. But, we were after after we sent the logs of Juniper. They found that there were some issues with the configuration.

There have been some issues sometimes. When you upgrade the device, it doesn't come up. It gets stuck.

The customer service and support are good. 

The pricing is expensive. 

It is a great product for routing. It is very stable for routing. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I primarily use them for data center applications, specifically for the scalability of databases.

Juniper QFX Series Switches offer several features that contribute to improved efficiency. 

One key advantage is the automation capabilities. This allows us to automate network configuration and management tasks using scripting languages. 

In our case, at the bank, we use a script for automation to confirm the switch's scalability in the local data center. We expanded the environment to utilize the environment feature with AWS, creating connections between both data centers. This setup allowed us to extend our operations to another data center in Latin America, using AWS and Juniper together.

EVPN-VXLAN feature offers the most benefits. It enhances our network's scalability, and flexibility.

Integrating the QFX switches was the first point of challenge, particularly aligning them with our data center's architecture. 

I also had challenge with scalability. 

I have experience with this product. 

I'm content with its stability.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. 

I contacted the support team once, to address a failure by replacing two units.  It was a good experience. 

The response and replacement process was good.

We previously used Cisco but now exclusively use Juniper.

It's a mixed situation. For someone with experience in provisioning Juniper equipment, the process can be more manageable. I find it easier due to my extensive experience with Juniper. 

However, for a junior network engineer, it might be challenging since the configuration security aspects are quite complex, resembling programming with Java.

So, it requires experience to set up effectively.

The solution is cheap, especially compared to competitors like Cisco.

I would recommend using this solution. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

The most valuable features are the VxLAN and the EVPN. I mean, the way the technology is designed. And it was also the first time we deployed such an infrastructure with the leaf and spine architecture. It was a really innovative network design for us.

There is room for improvement in the pricing model. It is too high.

The QFX series switches are pretty solid in terms of features and functionality. But one other thing that could be improved is the user interface. It can be a bit complicated for new users, and it takes some time to get used to it.

Another thing is knowledge is the problem in our region. People or engineers are not familiar with Juniper. That's why Juniper is a vendor that has no great market share here. But, if Juniper decided to develop a strategy to push their product in our market, they would have a very good share of the market because the product is good.

I deployed Juniper just a few months ago. I used Juniper QFX series switches for a particular project. Here in Africa, in Cameroon particularly, Juniper is not really in the market. So, Juniper was the vendor selected for a particular project because we wanted to implement it with the QFX switches due to their high performance.

Because the network was already using Cisco routers, but with the new data center, we really wanted to use the IP fabric from Juniper.

The solution is stable. We have had one infrastructure in production for a few months now and have not been called for any issues yet.

It is very scalable because it is very robust. We have not used 50% of its performance, so it's highly scalable. The customer we deployed Juniper for has about 2000 users since it's a bank.

The deployment was straightforward. We didn't make it complex; we did it simply with BGP as the network protocol. The implementation phase took about three months. The customer was not ready for testing at a certain level, so it took longer than expected. However, the deployment itself was not complicated. We first did our installation trial, so the deployment process was straightforward.

I deployed Juniper just a few months ago. With my team, we completed a project, deploying the IP fabric there with Juniper with the QFX series switches. Three people were on a team for the deployment, and one was an expert.

The price is too high for Juniper's solution and too expensive. Comparing it with other solutions like Cisco and Fortinet, Fortinet normally provides the best price, especially for security solutions.

The only advice I can give is to undergo deep training on Juniper's new solution and learn how to set it up and configure it. Most of our engineers here are not certified in Juniper, so it's not easy to find someone with that certification. Therefore, my advice is to go and try to master how to deploy the new solution. Juniper is one of the best vendors in networking solutions, and they have good solutions now. We just need to encourage people to learn how to use it.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I rate it an eight because I still need to dive deeper into mastering everything about it.

We are using Juniper QFX Series Switches as site routers and datacentre switches.

The solution has improved our organization because all the functions are running well and reliably.

Juniper QFX Series Switches provide a great platform for all of our requirements and are easy to use.

I can't think of specific improvements, but the truth is that with every software update, there come new improvements and expanding functionalities that we use successfully.

I have been using Juniper QFX Series Switches for approximately eight years.

Only good, Juniper QFX Series Switches are very stable.

Juniper QFX Series Switches are very easy scalable. We have a large network and they work well and reliably.

We have approximately 3,000 people using the solution.

The technical support is great and professional. There are various forms of support, extensive documentation, examples of solutions ...

Positive

We were previously using Cisco solutions.

We purchase new hardware and expand to new solutions and new sites. The initial setup of Juniper QFX Series Switches is straightforward. The process takes a few hours.

We implement solutions. We did the implementation of Juniper QFX Series Switches using our IT department. Typically the solution takes approximately two people to implement.

The IT department in our organization is only a support team. We do not aim at profitability.

The price of Juniper QFX Series Switches is higher because we are running some large enterprise network with a wide range of functionalities. However, they are less expensive than comparable Cisco or HPE hardware.

Yes, we considered staying with Cisco products.

I rate Juniper QFX Series Switches a ten out of ten.

Reliability is very good. So we purchased it at a high cost.

The price could be cheaper.

Performance and security are good. I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

It is scalable. I work for RailTel. We sell to many users all over India.

Support is good and customer-friendly.

The initial setup is complex.

You have to be very cost-effective if you are in the Indian market.

It is very costly. It has a three-year license.

I recommend the solution. I am using it for product and SD-WAN.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use this solution to connect to CDN networks and services. We are using version 20.4R2.7. 

The solution is deployed on-premises.

The price could be cheaper.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It's a stable solution.

Technical support is good.

Setup was easy.

The cost is expensive.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.