Juniper MX Series Routers Reviews

Our primary use case is as a border router.  

I think that extensions are very valuable. The way you can test the configuration before applying that configuration permanently is very helpful. The rollback configuration is also very useful. The logs, the way they have implemented their system, it is similar to a Linux machine. These features work very well.  

As with almost any product except for something that is already free there is always room for improvement in the price. If you wanted to use some type of server, you have to buy the license. I would like to see more options for free, legal usage of features.  

In terms of improvement, I would like for it to effectively protect against the broadcast storms, multicast storms, and DDoS attacks.

We have been using Juniper Enterprise Routers for about six years now.  

Stability is excellent. Really excellent.

There are three or four thousand end-users daily. We require four technicians for maintenance.

Scalability is an aspect in which we'd like to have more options. It's not easy to scale when we are limited to one or two 10G ports. 

I believe that their current setup for support is an acceptable solution in general terms. They have quite a nice support system where you can find things easily by yourself. We're really happy about this.  

Before using this solution we were previously using Cisco routers. We switched because we wanted 10G bandwidth from our provider. 10-G slots in Cisco were very, very expensive.

The setup for the solution was surprisingly straightforward. I think it was because we just migrated from a Cisco router. There were tools available on the internet that translated the Cisco commands to Juniper commands. So it was very easy to do and very straightforward to build the new configuration.  

The leaning curve was not very steep.  

The deployment took about two days working full-time and the only person involved in the deployment process was me.  

At one point we did use the help of an integrator but it was some point later after the initial configuration was done. We did that initial configuration directly from what we already had, using only the translation tools.  

Because we were not migrating. We were not inventing anything new. We were not building anything new. We were just migrating. That was why it was so easy. We already had the configuration, and we just wanted to deploy it to the new equipment. It was not custom, so it was simple.  

Juniper is very user-friendly, efficient, and we're very happy with it. I don't know if there are other vendors that have the same kind of service out there. We are very pleased with the performance of the Juniper router.

The biggest I lesson I learned from using Juniper is never go back to Cisco.

I would rate it a ten out of ten. We're very happy with the current functionality.

The Juniper Enterprise Routers are being used in a purely ISP deployment. We are a carrier, and most of our customers are smaller ISPs.

We have several use cases include firewall restrictions for internal and external access, distribution switches, and the edge routers. The MX104 units are usually used for distribution.

The most valuable feature on the EX switches is qinq support, and on the SRX it is the firewall capabilities. These are the two that have been very helpful.

On the SRX, the firewall is very easy to configure, especially when you want to filter out traffic.

Most IT equipment now has graphical interfaces, and there is a need for the Juniper routers to have a more intuitive web interface.

In the future, because everything now is going cloud, any features that support or improve cloud services would be much appreciated.

I have been using Juniper Enterprise Routers for close to three years.

We have only had one problem, which we haven't sorted out because of other, internal issues. We had a bug with an MX104 that we tried to deploy and it kept crashing. It hasn't been solved as of yet.

When it comes to scalability, the MX104 and the EX switches are easy. However, the SRX500 model is very hard to scale.

I'm not sure how many users that our clients have, but in our group, we all use the Juniper devices.

The technical support is very good and the documentation on the website is very accessible. Some of the deployments that we have done were made very easy because of access to this information. Without the vendor's help, we could have had difficulties during some of the deployments that we've done.

I am not aware of any other solutions that we have used.

The initial setup is not complex for me because I have a Cisco background, and it did not take long to get used to Juniper. If somebody has worked with Linux or Unix then the hierarchy is not that different.

I would say that if somebody is coming from a background of Cisco and a bit of Linux, they won't have any problem. However, for people that I've seen who don't have a pure IT background, they have difficulties getting used to it.

I have deployed several of the routers on my own.

From my experience in the ISP world, I think that Juniper Enterprise Routers are very good products. I would recommend this solution for anybody who is looking to start small and scale up because I think that you can easily do that using Juniper products.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution as the backbone of our network.

The most valuable feature is the capacity of the throughput for the firewall.

The flexibility in the MPLS configuration is very good.

The price of this solution should be improved.

If you have a VPN tunnel with one side Juniper and the other side Cisco then you might face some issues.

In terms of stability, this is one of the best solutions that I have ever seen. In the Arab Gulf areas like Dubai, we have some deployments that are more than ten years old and they are still stable. They should be phased out, but they are still in production and stable.

It is possible that you might find some bugs, but this happens in any product. I would say this is one of the crucial areas, but if you have the OneTouch service with Juniper then you will receive the bulletins and updates for bug fixes.

Technical support for Juniper is good, but it is not as good as Cisco. Cisco is number one for technical support, and Juniper may be the second.

We also have experience with Cisco routers, and their technical support is number one.

When you are not familiar with this solution it seems difficult to configure and deploy. Once you have the proper training and hands-on experience, it is not that difficult.

For me, the initial setup is straightforward. I configure the hostname, use the interfaces, and configure the routing. All of this stuff should be included in the low-level design. We have developed a template to make this easier.

If everything is ready, including the high-level and low-level design, then you can deploy this solution in approximately two hours.

We deploy this solution ourselves, and we are careful to take steps in order to avoid downtime. We also take the In-Service Software Upgrade (ISSU) into consideration.

An additional license can be purchased for support of a next-generation firewall.

Juniper is a leading company in the MPLS technology, which is one of the reasons that they are used more often than Cisco by service providers.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this device is to have the proper training, first. It should not be configured before the training is complete. Also, be sure to understand the product and the features that it has to offer. In most of the cases that I have seen, the company is not really aware of the features. This means that they might have sizing issues with the product and end up with the wrong one. The high-level and low-level design should be based on the actual requirements.

Sometimes, adding services to the appliance is not what you want to do. You can use this router only for routing tables in some cases because, for service providers, the routing table size is one of the major factors. Whether it is Cisco, Juniper, Fortinet, or Palo Alto, you will see a reduction in throughput for every service that is added to the appliance. This is why proper design is so important.

Overall, this is a good device.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use this solution for the design. The performance is good. 

The security features could be better. 

We have been using this solution for about three years. I believe we are using versions 4200 and 9600.

The solution is stable.

It is a scalable solution. We have about five members using the solution. There is no need to increase usage right now. 

We have worked with the technical support and they are good.

We did not use any other solutions before Juniper Enterprise Routers.

The initial setup was good, and there were no problems.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten, and I recommend it to others.

Our organization recommends Juniper MX Series Routers to our clients for their networking requirements depending on their needs. These routers are suitable for companies of all sizes.

We are able to easily build chassis with Juniper MX Series Routers.

The documentation needs to be updated to reflect the changes made in the latest update. There have been instances where we followed the documentation, only to realize that the options had been altered in a recent update.

I am currently proposing Juniper MX Series Routers to my clients.

The technical support is satisfactory.

Positive

We offer routers based on our customers' requirements, including Cisco, Arista, and Huawei, in addition to Juniper MX Series Routers.

Implementing Juniper MX Series Routers can be easy or complex, depending on each situation and whether firmware needs to be updated or if there are any bugs.

The prices for Juniper MX Series Routers are reasonable.

I give Juniper MX Series Routers a nine out of ten.

Integrating Juniper solutions into a non-Juniper environment is feasible.

I recommend Juniper MX Series Routers.