Juniper MX Series Routers Reviews

My use case for Juniper MX Series Routers primarily involves using it as a provider edge router, P router, provider router, and a provider edge router. We call it P router and PE router, where we terminate the internet and MPLS links, connect other devices where customer circuits are aggregated, and run MPLS and Internet BGP protocols on these routers.

The features of Juniper MX Series Routers that I find most useful are its nice scalability, redundant power supply, and routing engines. Redundancy is maintained in the router itself, including power redundancy and routing engine redundancy. The routers run mostly all the protocols required for the managed service provider, and security-wise, they also have good features, allowing us to provide IPSec VPN services from the routers. These are the basic, mostly used features that we are utilizing.

For Deep Packet Inspection, Juniper MX Series Routers have firewall filters and commands related to routing engine protection, and then packet inspection features are configured.

In traffic management with Juniper MX Series Routers, I leverage the policer, shapers, and quality of service parameters for traffic management. I also use OSPF traffic engineering features and MPLS-TE; these are a few features that I employ for traffic management.

In my opinion, to improve Juniper MX Series Routers, Juniper should make the MS-MIC card required for IPSec support more affordable, as it is currently costly. The renewal support charges are also very costly, so they should make that compatible or affordable.

Currently, what I use is sufficient, but Juniper should natively support IPSec VPN without requiring the purchase of another costly card. This is a pain point that I am experiencing; otherwise, everything is as expected.

I have been working with Juniper MX Series Routers for 15 years.

In terms of stability, I would rate Juniper MX Series Routers around a seven to eight because, hardware-wise, it is not that stable. Frequently, I observe routing engine crashes or software crashes, and there are always bugs present; however, that is common across all software as they are constantly evolving.

For the scalability of Juniper MX Series Routers, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I find Juniper's technical support quite good.

Positive

The initial setup of Juniper MX Series Routers is simple because I have been using it for the last 20 years. My company has utilized Juniper since day one of its founding. We have templates, and whenever new Junos code comes into existence, we upgrade it easily, conducting POCs for newer commands. The setup process is well-established, making setup easy.

In terms of pricing, I would rate it comparatively affordable; compared to Cisco, it is quite affordable, and I believe we get a good discount.

Cisco is always a competitor for Juniper MX Series Routers because Cisco is bigger than Juniper. Additionally, HP has acquired Juniper, and I do not know how the HP routing portfolio is getting impacted or how they are merging. I have seen Extreme Networks and Alcatel-Lucent, which was acquired by Nokia; it is quite a mix and match. Companies require experts to handle live customer traffic, which leads to a reluctance to change vendors frequently. If a company has been using Cisco for 10 or 15 years, transitioning to Juniper is not taken lightly, as changing core backbone networks and finding experts is challenging.

For now, my focus is mostly with Juniper, and that is correct. If we talk about Cisco, I am not stopping work with Cisco solutions. The distribution is approximately 80% Juniper and 20% to 30% Cisco.

Regarding the Session Smart Router, we are using Juniper MX Series Routers because we are a telecom company and managed service provider, so we use that carrier-grade router.

However, we are not working with firewalls from Cisco or Juniper; we are using Palo Alto as a firewall.

My role involves hands-on work on the routers. I manage a team and assist team members whenever they need help with configurations.

When we talk about advanced DDoS protection, we provide basic DDoS protection, not fully advanced DDoS protection.

While Juniper MX Series Routers support IPv6, we are not using segment routing but utilizing IPv6 at one level. The IPv6 feature is not fully utilized because public customers are using IPv4; IPv6 is not that popular, but they are ready to support IPv6.

In my opinion, Junos OS is better than Cisco because I get a chance to verify my configuration before committing or finalizing the configuration on the router. The show compare command, for example, is a good option where before the execution, it shows any errors, giving us a chance to find the errors. This is the best feature that I have found in Junos OS.

I do purchase Juniper products directly from the vendor when possible; our buying is centralized in the US. For China and some restricted countries where we cannot ship devices, I buy from the local Juniper partner. I would give a final score of between seven to eight for Juniper MX Series Routers; perhaps a seven.

My main use case for Juniper MX Series Routers is core and edge routing for our combined utility and telecom network. We're providing power and telecommunication services across a big chunk of rural Alaska communities that in some cases have no road access, only air or barge. Juniper MX Series Routers handle our backbone routing, MPLS transport, BGP peering with upstream providers, and the aggregation of traffic from remote sites back to our core.

Juniper MX Series Routers handle the challenges of such remote and rugged deployment well, as we have remote communities connected via microwave and fiber links, where the MX routers at each end are handling the MPLS tunnel that carries both our internal network traffic and the broadband services we provide to residential and business customers. If those routers go down, those communities lose connectivity entirely. No internet, no phone, potentially disruptions to systems that support our power infrastructure. The reliability of those boxes is not abstract. It's real, and it matters to real people in remote places.

Operating in Alaska means your equipment gets tested in ways that equipment in a data center in a mild climate doesn't, especially considering temperature extremes, power fluctuations, and remote sites where you can't just drive over and swap hardware if something fails.

The best features Juniper MX Series Routers offer include the Trio chipset architecture, which is the foundation of everything. The separation of control plane and forwarding plane means that even when the routing software is doing something intensive, the actual packet forwarding doesn't miss a beat. That line-rate performance regardless of what else is happening is what you can always count on.

My experience with the Trio chipset architecture is something I'd genuinely miss if I had to give it up. The ability to stage a configuration change, review exactly what's going to change, and either commit it or roll it back cleanly is such a sensible way to manage network configuration. It has saved me from mistakes more times than I can count.

Juniper MX Series Routers have positively impacted my organization mainly through network reliability. Before we standardized on Juniper MX Series Routers, we had a more mixed environment, and our core network stability was more variable. Since building out the MX-based infrastructure, our core network uptime has been consistently above 99.99%. For a utility company providing services to communities that depend on us, that reliability directly translates into trust and service quality.

We've reduced unplanned outages at our core sites by probably 70% compared to the mixed environment we had before. Our mean time to restore when something does go wrong has dropped significantly because Junos gives us clear diagnostic information, and the commit history makes it straightforward to identify what changed and when. Before, it could take hours to diagnose a core routing issue. Now we're usually resolving things in under 30 minutes.

One area where Juniper MX Series Routers can be improved is the price point, as Juniper MX Series Routers are expensive, both the hardware and the licensing.

The licensing model is something I'd flag for needed improvements. The feature licensing on top of hardware costs adds complexity and cost.

I have been using Juniper MX Series Routers for seven years.

Juniper MX Series Routers are exceptionally stable.

Regarding scalability, Juniper MX Series Routers scale extremely well, as the modular chassis design, MX480 and above, means I can add capacity by adding line cards rather than replacing the chassis.

My experience with customer support is that Juniper support has been solid.

I would rate customer support an eight out of 10, as they are consistently competent and responsive.

I previously used a different solution with a mixed environment that included some Cisco, some older Juniper platforms, and some equipment from smaller vendors.

I have seen a return on investment, as the reliability improvement alone justifies it. The cost of an unplanned outage for us, including the reputational and operational impact on the communities we serve, is significant.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that it is expensive.

Before choosing Juniper MX Series Routers, I did evaluate other options, including Cisco ASR 9000 Series, which is the obvious alternative for carrier-grade routing. The ASR 9000 is a strong platform, and Cisco's MPLS implementation is mature, with capable hardware.

My advice to others looking into using Juniper MX Series Routers is to invest in learning Junos properly before you deploy. It's a different paradigm from IOS if you're coming from a Cisco background. The engineers who struggle with Juniper MX Series Routers are almost always the ones who tried to map their Cisco mental model onto Junos, rather than learning Junos on its own terms.

Regarding Juniper MX Series Routers' AI capabilities, I think its governance and security are crucial. Juniper has been pushing AI-native networking through their Mist AI integration and the AI-driven operations capabilities. From a governance standpoint, we're cautious as we run operational technology networks alongside our IT infrastructure, and the security requirements around what has access to OT network data are strict.

The accuracy and reliability of output are reasonably good as the AI-assisted anomaly detection in the Junos telemetry features we have evaluated has been reasonably accurate in test scenarios. It's flagged some genuine anomalies, and the false positive rate has been manageable. However, we haven't deployed it in production at full scale yet, so I can't give a definitive answer.

I would rate this review a 9 out of 10 overall.

I work with an internet service provider in Uganda and have experience working with Juniper MX Series Routers, as we use Mikrotik, Juniper, and Cisco routers on our infrastructure.

We have a mix of Juniper equipment including the Juniper MX Series Routers, specifically the MX series, and we also have the Juniper ACX series. We use the Juniper firewall, the SRX series, including the SRX 5800, that's the highest we have used on the network. On the MX series, we have used up to MX204, but it's not a big network. We used up to MX204 and MX80s extensively.

The best features of Juniper MX Series Routers include their performance, which is quite good for us in terms of hardware performance. The Junos OS, the software, is stable, and we don't have many issues with the Juniper system itself. They have numerous features that allow us to deliver services, be it Layer 2 connectivity to customers, Layer 3 connectivity, data center connectivity, or even security features.

Hardware performance has been a top-notch reason why we chose Juniper in the beginning, especially the MX series, which performs well in terms of network uptime and we don't encounter many failures. We have had a bad experience here and there with the ACX series, and their network performance is not so great compared to MX, so we have mostly done away with the ACX and only use MX at some of the core sites.

I have seen a return on investment from the solution. Initially, we deployed MX80s on the network, and since our company has been in operation since 2006, from that point we used MX80s until around 2016 when we upgraded most of them to MX204s. From our experience, once we buy an MX204, we don't have issues with it; we have never had to replace an MX204 on the network. Once we deploy it, it works until we decide to upgrade the capacity. The return on investment is significant, as once we buy it, we have no worries about performance.

The areas of Juniper MX Series Routers that have room for improvement include the port count; for instance, the MX204 has only four 40G or 100G ports, which is quite limited. While I know there are some models with higher port capacity, affordability is an issue for many customers. The MX204, while mid-range and affordable, has limitations regarding port numbers, and that challenge means sometimes we need to install two routers at a PoP to increase the port count. This is a significant area where they need to improve.

I started using Juniper MX Series Routers from 2017, so I have approximately seven years of experience with it.

Juniper MX Series Routers are a scalable solution because they have many models in the MX series. Though some customers may seek more from a particular model, such as Roke wanting more from the MX series, there are other versions available. The MX204 itself is scalable; you can start with it and still have options for 400 gig routers. You can begin with it and increase capacity on the same router, but beyond that, you need to change the router.

Technical support from Juniper rates as an eight on a scale from one to ten. Although we currently do not use their support, we've gained significant experience with Juniper where most of the issues we can handle in-house. From around 2015 to 2019, we were still using Juniper support and it was quite reliable, hence the rating of eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of Juniper MX Series Routers was initially easy for us. We gained significant Juniper hands-on experience over the years, but we had support from professionals during that initial setup. However, right now we handle everything in-house.

The solution is deployed in our organization as hardware and it is on-prem, as we run on on-prem solutions. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Juniper MX Series Routers a nine.

They are primarily used for P&E, BGP, and carrier-grade NAT deployments. Also, for provider routers, MX-204/MX240/MX480 and MX960 for BNG deployments and Edge/Aggregation and core, and MX304 / 10003 and MX40 for Edge/Gateway for Service providers.

Juniper products are very good in terms of performance.  you place MX240/480/960 provider edge/Aggregation and Core Also good part of it you can use line cards and CB/RE with each other's(within MX-240/MX480/MX960). also few cards from MX960/480 can used in MX2020  i.e 

The following MPCs require an Adapter Card (ADC) in MX2020

• MPC1E
• MPC2E
• MPC3E
• MPC5E
• MPC7E

Juniper's custom Trio chipset drives their MX routers, offering superior performance. Juniper's design separates the control plane and the forwarding plane, which is a key aspect of their architecture. This separation provides high throughput, maintaining line-rate performance across the MX platform. 

Specifically, models like MX240, MX480, and MX960 offer interchangeable line cards. The same goes for the full-featured line cards, which are compatible with the MX2020. 

In future releases, I'm looking for enhanced subscriber management features, and in CGNAT support port-range specifically in the BNG series.

I have been working with this for over 12 years. I still actively work with it and provide day-to-day support, including level three support. 

In Pakistan, most major service providers use Juniper. I deployed MX, ACX, and other products for them. 

I handle a range from the MX80, MX104, MX240, MX480, MX960, MX10008, MX2020, MX304, to MX204. I deploy all these products, so I'm very familiar with them.

It's stable. It's stable for ages. I don't see the need to upgrade unless the customer wants new features or Juniper recommended for an upgrade.  

There are so many releases. I was even using a tail release myself before advising customer , and it was stable. Even though they are end-of-life, So, the MX series is stable. Many customers are still running it, even legacy versions.

The MX series offers flexibility. You can automate, configure manually, or do whatever makes your engineers' lives easier.

I haven't faced any major issues myself. The main issues I've seen have been customer configuration issues. Sometimes, customers don't upgrade their hardware when necessary for certain features.

Other times, customers configure things incorrectly. For instance, I might ask the customers to configure something for DevOps, but they forget to disable it. I even try to remind them in emails, but they still forget. That's when they start experiencing issues. Otherwise, there are no problems with the console.

It is scalable. It has both vertical and horizontal scalability. It depends on the customer's network deployment . You can scale it up within the same chassis. For example, someone running on MPC2 or MPC3 cards can upgrade to a 40gig, 100gig, or 10gig platform without buying new equipment. They just need to upgrade the control cards, routing engines, and line cards. So it's scalable in that way, too. 

I've been using virtual chassis on MX for over seven years. It works well for subscriber management, on MX240, MX480, and MX960. Then, you have the EVPN . The model there is for scalability and scaling up. 

Now, Juniper has finally introduced modules for service providers and published a couple of Juniper-validated designs which is impressive. These designs recommend how to scale your network and help you design a network that can meet your needs.

I haven't really faced any issues because I've been working with their tech engineers for many years, more than 17 years. So, I don't have any problems, but others might because they don't have expert-level access or aren't entitled to the level three direct support contract. So what happens is, normally, my peers and I have access on expert-to-expert access.

Positive

I also tested Juniper vSRX solution in my lab for my LLD preparation. It's a good product for small and medium organizations. It's also suitable for customers who want to avoid lengthy procurement procedures and deploy solutions quickly within their budget and network.

I work with Juniper routers, MX, vMX, PCX, ACX, SRX, vSRX,SSL VPN products, and currently, the MX960, MIPT, and ECX. I deployed them for many service providers in Pakistan, replacing solutions from other vendors. Juniper excels in high-performance infrastructure and carrier-grade NAS solutions, making it ideal for service providers. 

The initial setup is very easy and straightforward. I have taken remote assistance many times from end customers. Basic, newly trained people were able to troubleshoot, provide me with access and commit confirm is key feature to help to check configuration without on-site access configuration can be reverted back to original.

Juniper normally does public TSB, KB and other documentation which help customer proactive fix the newly hit PRs or Security updates in proactive manners, which help customers to avoid bugs and scalable and high performance. 

If the customer's site is ready—meaning the power pooling and environment are ready—the deployment time depends on the criteria. For instance, in a Provider Edge (PE) scenario, i I've  designed and tested the configuration in my lab, or if I'm replacing a similar device for the same customer and only need to change the IP address, it can be quite quick. It's important to ensure that the software is on the recommended release. 

The hardware specifics, like next-generation routing engines, also play a role. Typically, it takes about 30 minutes for the initial upgrade and reboot. If it's a manual configuration, the service-wide installation takes another 30 minutes. So, for a straightforward installation with pre-configured integration, it's typically a day-one job. 

In a data center scenario, additional considerations like network intent come into play, and it can take a few hours. So, in a data center context, whether it's for Internet edge, data center interconnect, or any other node within a data center, the placement of the MX router varies. The time it takes depends on the deployment model. For experienced teams with well-planned setups, it's generally a one-day job.

If the hardware is redundant, then you have some time to do any upgrade or to add cards. Based on the deployment again, there are minimal items that need maintenance, like the paint-free and filter, which you have to change. That is readily and easily available from Juniper. 

So, as a partner, we actively maintain with the customer, planning and giving them regular maintenance plans, especially for the environment type of stuff. That's what customers normally do. If they are managing it, you don't see any issues arising.

The ROI is there like some customers would like to re-use cards. For example, if they're using MX960 in one location and MX480 in another, they might want to use the MX480 cards in the MX960 later on. This is possible with the MX platform, but it's not the case with some of the newer models like MX240 and MX304 cards or RE are not exchange able with MX-480/MX-960. The air intake on MX480 models is not ideal and requires a dedicated intake kit, which can be a disadvantage for some customers.

Bit high in prices 

I work for a system integrator. I sell Cisco, Juniper, Aruba, and others. I'm not biased towards any particular brand. I propose different solutions to clients based on their specific needs and RCI design. 

However, the service point is nice for large Juniper deployments. 

Initially, when we started deploying MX routers for customers, I faced some challenges. But the new releases are much better and provide a smoother experience. However, one drawback is the non-interchangeability of cards in newer models from MX304, MX10008, MX2008, and MX2020. Some customers want to leverage their existing inventory, but that's not possible with these models. This was a business decision by Juniper. this is only support between MX240/MX480/960 and MX-2020

Compared to Cisco, Huawei, or Nokia, Juniper is not always the most competitive in terms of price. In fact, we lost a big project to another vendor because our price was not good enough. This was partly due to the high cost of professional services we offered.

Juniper charges a lot for professional services that price should be reduce. Even though we sell their devices, we don't like selling professional services because we have the experience to do it ourselves. 

It's critical for the partner or system integrator to have experienced people who can do lab replications and other preparation before going to the customer and doing a Proof of Concept (POC). It's challenging to have MX960 chassis at the partner level, but if you can arrange it, it's the best way to demonstrate all the features to the customer.

Secondly, the person doing the POC should be knowledgeable about the product. Once, during a POC for subscriber management, the competing vendors didn't have subject matter experts to come in and assist. Therefore, the initial POC wasn't very good. So, my advice is to train your people and train the customer.

Everyone knows Cisco and must of local and private Academies training cisco , but Juniper-specific training is only available at the Juniper Portal or requires the customer to purchase it and price are high.  People can get free training from juniper portal which is free now days with discounted vouchers for in certification track, this will help the Juniper to aware about products and syntax. 

It's a universal flagship product and my favorite, so I would rate it a ten out of ten. However, everything has its limitations.

I primarily use Nmap to find security lapses within the network and to check if an IP space is available or not. There are multiple use cases, and it really depends on the specific time what I need it for, but it has always been helpful.

My main use case for routers involves basic routing, as I work for Cisco and have to use it every day.

My use case varies from project to project, so I cannot specify a particular timeframe for working with Juniper MX Series Routers.

I find it simple to configure Juniper MX Series Routers, which I would say is a beneficial part of that product.

Juniper could introduce more virtual products, such as virtual routers and a better license.

I really do not have an answer right now on what else Juniper can make better.

I have been working with Cisco enterprise routers for almost nine to ten years now.

I would rate the stability of Juniper MX Series Routers an eight out of ten.

I can work with multiple tiers of routers. Scalability in the sense of replicating the same configuration on other or different sites is what I mean.

It is scalable, and it is always handled via automation.

I cannot answer how complex or simple the setup process is for Juniper MX Series Routers, as in mixed-vendor environments, generally customers or the field have already done that. All I need to do is troubleshoot.

I do not get involved in conversations about pricing for Juniper because I do not know what the pricing is, as my expertise is in technical troubleshooting.

Based on my experience, I would say Cisco is better; I am a Cisco employee and have not worked much with Juniper, so I am not really sure.

I remember a conversation about the Nmap product from almost two years back, which is correct. I do use Nmap tools very often, and my feedback about Nmap was really valuable.

I mostly work with VMware, Cisco, and Juniper MX Series Routers.

I work with VMware hypervisors, specifically ESXi.

I work with Cisco IOS XE routers.

I also work with Juniper MX Series Routers.

For Cisco, I primarily work with Cisco enterprise routers.

It really depends on how the customer network is structured; I occasionally work with Juniper MX Series Routers in mixed-vendor environments that we need to work on.

I mostly work with Juniper MX Series Routers in the data.

For Juniper MX Series Routers, I would give a final rating of eight.

It really depends on the use case, but I do appreciate the product.

I would give this review a rating of eight overall.

The product provides us with automation capabilities.

The product is easy to use. It is more suitable for automation. It has very clear tags. Juniper is much better than anything in the market. It has robust devices.

Finding market expertise is hard. Not everybody is familiar with Juniper's technologies like Cisco. The product could provide complete decoupling between the control plane and the data plane.

I have been using the solution for seven years.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten. We have not experienced any problems since we deployed the solution.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. Once we have the modular chassis, expansion is easier. We just need to buy the card and expand the router. We have 1000 to 3000 routers.

We have dedicated support.

Positive

I have used Huawei and Cisco. I'm more comfortable with Juniper MX. It's a personal preference. People prefer Cisco, but from my point of view, Juniper is good because it's a robust, stable, and mature technology. Huawei is not 100% mature.

The initial setup is not very complex, but it is not very simple. We need to have some expertise to do it. Cisco has a Setup Wizard that we can use. Juniper doesn't have it. We need to have CLI expertise.

Once we know what to do in our use case, it is very simple. Juniper’s cloud solutions are not well known. They have some issues. They are still dependent on hardware architecture. The cloud solution does not perform well.

The solution is more expensive compared to other solutions. It provides better hardware architecture design, but it translates into cost.

My use cases are not complex. I have heard friends say that the product is flexible. It can be provisioned on different networks. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We are basically an outsourcing company, so we provide services to our customers. In this case, Juniper was one of the vendors for one of our customers, which is an internet provider in the US.

So it's a service provider internet, and Juniper helps me with this.

The "Commit" feature stands out. When you try to commit commands, you have some options like sandbox config, leaving those temporary for 60 seconds. 

This feature allows you to commit configuration changes to the candidate configuration, and then review them for errors before committing them to the active configuration. 

Another feature that I like is the integration with Cisco routers. This allows you to connect Juniper MX routers to Cisco routers and have them work together seamlessly. We never have interoperability issues.

There is room for improvement in pricing. The product could be cheaper for smaller networks. 

I have been using this solution for about five years. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. We never had any issues. 

It is quite a scalable solution. I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

Juniper is quite good. I didn't notice any big difference, especially between Cisco series and Juniper MX. They are quite similar.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a three out of ten, where one is easy and ten is difficult. 

The deployment was a team effort. We started with ten people and went up to forty. Initially, when we did a lot of customer migrations using Juniper, the initial configuration was quite easy. But it depends on how many customers, how many VPNs, and all that stuff are being migrated. So in terms of timing, the minimal configuration, just making the router up and running, maybe took around two hours or more. 

I would rate the pricing model a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. It is not cheap. 

I would recommend it. Compared to Cisco, for example, about pricing, Juniper is a bit cheaper. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. Because all the projects that we worked on were quite complex. So, scaling, Juniper could use some switches before the MX series, and it's quite scalable. We can do everything that we want, especially in big platforms

We are the system integrator. Normally we are using it in our projects.

Juniper Routers are used for our MPRS project with our clients. We have used the MPRS router. Apart from this, we have used SRX series of routers where the event requirement is there. And with switching also, we have used a Juniper router in our MPRS Integration Project.

The most important thing with the Juniper router is that feature-wise, lots of routers are similar. If I'm talking about the performance, it's at 99%. Apart from this, the hardware reliability is very good.

It lasts a long time. The end-of-life is approximately eight years. 

Juniper routers are very capable and can be scalable. 

We may also integrate it as an event solution in the Juniper Router SRX3.

The solution is pretty easy to set up after a bit of training.

Juniper is pretty good and pretty known right now for SRX3 where an SD-WAN solution is there. If we are not getting the MPLS connectivity in fiber, then we may use the 4D, and LD modems and get Juniper integration, router, and SRX fiber applications, which we may enable. 

We'd like them to be capable of adding firewall options to the license. 

In the next version, I'd like to see a load balancing and SD-WAN solution altogether in a simple manner.

I've been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It's possible to scale if you plan ahead. The products are very much defined to the load, in terms of MBPS. If I'm talking about a hundred MBPS products, we have to initial levels, we have to think, what will be our maximum load? If we will plan that product well at the time of deployment, then we don't have any problems. That's the main thing. To scale, we have to know in advance what may be our load in the future, maybe after one year or maybe after two years. If you do this, then everything will be fine on Juniper. You don't have to change the router. 

We have ten to 15 users on it right now.

We also use MicroTik. We're also familiar with Cisco, Aruba, HP, and Ruckus.

Juniper is, definitely, in competition with Cisco. They are, I think, 30% to 40% cheaper. In comparison to HP routers, there is a 10% to 15% variable. If you are talking about Ruckus and Aruba, they're in the Wi-Fi segment. In the Wi-Fi segment, Ruckus and Aruba are the leaders. In the wiring router segment, Cisco and Juniper are the leaders. There is no competition apart from Cisco for Juniper in regard to enterprise routers.

In terms of the initial setup, you have to learn a little bit of Juniper voice command. If you have learned Juniper voice command, then everything will be in a similar pattern. That makes it quite easy. That said, for the first one or two days, you need hands-on training. Afterward, it is very easy.

I'd rate it four out of five in terms of ease of setup. It only takes a half-hour for configuration.

We integrate this solution for our clients. 

For 10 to 15 users, if you have to go for the SRX3, a startup central router, in terms of dollars, it is maybe $300 annually. This is just the hardware cost. $300 to $400 is the hardware cost and for licensing cost, it may be around, for support and all, $100 per year. This is for an enterprise user.

We are a partner and integrators.

If you have a small setup related to the enterprise office then you should go for Juniper, otherwise, for home, you don't have to use Juniper as there are lots of products out there. For $200, lots of products are there. Juniper is 100% recommended for Telco ISPs. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are using Juniper MX Series Routers for internet connection and for importing and managing data. We are also using them for internal connectivity. They serve as a border between our initial team.

For the Juniper MX Series Routers, it plays a crucial role in our network. They offer numerous features, enabling multiple connections and handling various reports. The routers efficiently manage the number of switched fabric codes and process features based on the specific switch requirements. Previously, I utilized them for processing and addressing customer-side concerns. The routers have excellent documentation, making it easy to resolve any issues that may arise. It's excellent for customization, especially in tailoring the Windows configuration environment. Overall, dealing with this solution has been straightforward and efficient.     

Currently, I don't have specific concerns or ideas for improvement. Regarding functionalities, I appreciate the user interface of Juniper Elite. Additionally, I'm exploring the use of Juniper Routers in a Parliament environment, particularly with Baragon, and so far, I find it to be a valuable feature.

We're currently facing an issue as we're in the process of building and dealing with the software, specifically transitioning from R2 to RC. It's like when there is an update in the routers, and in the process, there are chances to end up losing some of your settings. The challenge arises because the recommended configurations for RC do not align with our features, necessitating a reevaluation of many features. It would have been more efficient if the initial recommendation had been for RC, avoiding the need to redo our research. This has resulted in a loss of time for us, and we've encountered this situation multiple times.

I have been using Juniper MX Series Routers.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate it a nine as well. We are implementing MX Routers in various environments, testing new features. I estimate it to be more than four hundred users.

They are really supportive. 

Positive

In comparing Juniper with other vendors, especially competitors like Cisco, I prefer Juniper over Cisco. While I have experience with both, I find the command interface of Juniper more preferable, and I believe it offers better overall performance.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I find it to be one of the most feature-rich aspects, particularly appreciating the synchronous configuration, making it straightforward for me.

I would rate it around a three. While I'm not deeply involved in pricing discussions, I believe it is comparatively more affordable than Cisco.

I would overall rate it 8 out of 10. 

We use Juniper MX Series Routers to connect with the ISP and give us the internet.

Juniper MX Series Routers are easy to configure and easy to back up.

Juniper must publish more information about Juniper MX Series Routers.

I have worked as an integrator with Juniper MX Series Routers for three years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

Compared with Cisco, I think that Juniper is better. If you want to make a rollback in Juniper, you can choose the date that you want to make a rollback.

Juniper is good, but they don't publish any information about the solution. Compared to Juniper, Cisco has too much information on the internet about its products.

The solution’s initial setup process is easy.

As for the deployment steps, I turn on the power cable on Juniper MX Series Routers and configure the system on the solution.

For deployment, it takes 20 to 30 minutes to install the system. Then you can configure the link to connect to another device.

When you want to install something on a version and cannot do it, you can check on another version. However, it would be best to do it during downtime when people are not working.

The pricing of Juniper MX Series Routers is okay compared to other technologies.

I use the Juniper MX204 version.

I would recommend Juniper MX Series Routers to other users.

Overall, I rate Juniper MX Series Routers nine and a half out of ten.