Juniper Enterprise Routers Reviews

The Juniper routers make up the backbone of networks for our customers. The majority of them are service providers, although some of them are enterprise-level organizations.

The most valuable feature is the capacity and throughput of the firewall. It is measure in terabytes.

The flexibility of the MPLS configuration is very good.

If you are setting up a site-to-site VPN between a Juniper and Cisco device then you may encounter some issues. Cisco devices need to use a GRE tunnel, which is not needed on Juniper devices. Juniper runs directly on it, and it is called a Secure Tunnel Interface.

The technical support varies by region and can be slightly improved.

I have been using Juniper Enterprise Routers for around four years.

These switches are very stable. I have some customers in banking and other industries in the Arab Gulf areas like the UAE, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia who have been running for more than ten years. Some of the devices need to be phased out, but they are still in production and stable.

As with any other product, you might find bugs. However, it is acceptable and can happen with any vendor. This is one of the crucial areas with Juniper because if you have OneTouch Service, the updates and bulletins are available.

With respect to scalability, this is one of the best solutions that I have ever seen. I have been deploying solutions for ten years in the Arab Gulf areas like the UAE, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia.

The quality of technical support depends on the region. For me, Cisco is number one in technical support, regardless of my preference for products from Palo Alto and Juniper, Cisco is number one in terms of response time and ticket tracking.

With respect to Juniper, I think that they might come in second.

I have used similar solutions by Cisco and Palo Alto.

The Cisco technical support is superior.

This solution is not difficult to deploy. I would say that it is straightforward. However, the first time somebody does it, they might find it difficult to deploy and configure. This is because they aren't familiar with it. When somebody has the proper training and hands-on experience, it is not that difficult.

If the high-level design and low-level design is in place, and the high availability deployment areas are ready, then it will take approximately two hours to deploy. This time includes production testing that avoids downtime, and we also consider the In-Service Software Upgrade (ISSU).

Where I am working now, it is very easy because we have all of the templates. It doesn't take much time. I can imagine that in some enterprise environments they take longer because they are lacking the technical hands, or the tools, or the templates.

I have hands-on experience deploying this solution for our customers.

Juniper is a leading company in MPLS technology and its equipment was one of the first ones that were ready for it. This is why juniper devices are often used by service providers, more so than Cisco devices. Juniper is one of the leaders in deploying the ISSU feature, although it now exists in Cisco and other solutions as well.

Certain Juniper models can be used only for the routing tables, which is important because in some cases, the routing table size is one of the factors.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to first have the proper training to help understand the product and all of its features. In most cases that I have seen, the company will order the device and are not aware of the features. They might have issues with sizing or getting the wrong product. Customers need to review the products in the context of their requirements and then build the high-level and low-level designs based on those requirements. Absolutely, you should not try to configure the device before completing the training because you need to take security into consideration.

Overall, this is a good device.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use the solution primarily with all of our customers. I work for a Telecommunication provider, and therefore we have a lot of customers that we support. We implement this product according to our customer's requirements. 

It's a good product.

The solution should be a little bit better at VPN items. It should be improved for end users.

The solution needs to offer SDN features.

The solution needs to figure out how to integrate the cloud in the future.

I've been using the solution for five or six years now. It's been a while.

The solution is quite stable. We've found it to be very good. There aren't bugs, glitches, or crashes.

The solution is scalable. It's very flexible. It's worked well for us over the years.

The amount of users varies from customer to customer. Their sizes vary from ten locations to more than one thousand. Each client is unique and has different scaling needs.

We've been in touch with technical support over the years. We're very happy with their level of support. I always talk directly to them or I send emails via the collection site platform. They've been great.

We use both Juniper and Cisco switches.

The initial setup is not too complex. It's actually pretty straightforward. However, the level of difficulty of the implementation depends on the complexity of the customer. Deployment could take anywhere from a week to two weeks depending on the client's requirements and their company's own complexity levels.

I'm from the technical department, so I don't handle billing or licensing. I wouldn't know what the exact costs are for the solution.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we are using.

It's not that I don't like the product, but I prefer the SDN solutions. It's a good product. My personal preference is for direct, however.

Juniper solutions are very flexible and very good. They offer very good performance. I have no problems with them. I'd feel comfortable recommending the solution. Other companies should try it out.  

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution in our usual deployments. We use it for firewalls with smaller brands and other levels of applications.

The entire Juniper space is very good.

Users are able to easily configure the whole solution via simple data.

One thing that the product can do better is clustering. Rather than just having two of them, it would help if there was one cluster to extend to more notes in the cluster itself.

I can't think of any features that are missing in the product.

I've been using the solution for a couple of years.

There are only two clusters, so it makes scalability a bit of an issue.

I don't directly deal with technical support. I wouldn't know how they are in relation to the assistance they offer clients. Operations deals with them and they have a contract with them.

The initial setup wasn't complex. It was straightforward. We didn't have any issues with the initial implementation.

As integrators, we help advise clients on the best ways to handle implementations and can assist with the process as well.

We are simply an integrator. We are advise clients about the product. We don't have a partnership directly with Juniper.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. They're a good solution to work with.

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.