Juniper MX Series Routers Reviews

We have established a customer network using Juniper EX Series Ethernet Switches, specifically the EX4200 with 804 ports, and it includes several Cylance Wi-Fi access points.

In our company, we are integrators who create solutions for our customers. I find Juniper EX Series Ethernet Switches to be suitable as it allows for easy configuration and offers features like SNMP. I find it convenient to switch from Cisco to Juniper EX because of my experience with various vendors like Huawei and Cisco. It's easy for me to read configurations from Cisco and transfer them to Juniper.

We mainly work with customers who want to change or upgrade their network infrastructure, moving from vendors like Cisco, Aruba, or Huawei to Juniper for modernization. Juniper's features are more advanced, and it helps us meet the diverse needs of our customers. My role involves helping with the deployment and configuration of switching, access points, and Wi-Fi, for building robust and modern networks.

There are areas for improvement in Juniper EX Series Ethernet Switches. One aspect that could be enhanced is the pricing; many clients acknowledge the quality of Juniper switches but find the pricing challenging, especially when compared to competitors like Huawei.

Additionally, from a feature perspective, there's a desire for improved clarity and ease of configuration in Juniper switches. Some users find it difficult to understand and configure certain aspects, necessitating the use of external tools. This complexity, especially for Internet service providers, can be a barrier. Addressing these concerns could further strengthen the position of Juniper switches in the market.

I have been using Juniper EX Series Ethernet Switches for the past ten years.

I find Juniper switches to be stable and reliable. The stability is high, and it's easy for me to affirm the stability of Juniper switches.

In terms of scalability, it's excellent, especially for Ethernet providers in Ukraine where there has been significant growth. The switches have proven to be scalable for customers with varying network requirements.

Positive

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 preferable, and I believe it offers better overall performance.

The installemnet is easy to find on the portal. Joining the portal and navigating through it has become straightforward for me. When deploying Juniper switches for customers, the first step is to discuss their requirements and recommend any modernization or changes needed. The next steps involve addressing specific features, discussing network topology, and optimizing costs for the project. 

In terms of manpower for deployment, it can vary based on the complexity of the project and the current market conditions. In the current situation in Ukraine, finding new engineers for the team can be challenging due to the ongoing changes in the market and the need for maintenance.

My advice to others considering Juniper switches is that they are efficient and reliable. 

Overall, on a scale of one to ten, I would rate Juniper switches at around seven.

We use it for routing, MPLS, and VPNs.

The most valuable features for us were related to our transition into MPLS technology, specifically for BPN and VPN services. Juniper's MPLS capabilities, including IS-IS and RSVP, were crucial in our decision because they aligned perfectly with our MPLS network requirements.

Identifying areas for improvement is tricky because Juniper's MX Series routers are a great fit for our needs. The Commit and Rollback feature, in particular, outshines what Cisco offers. While it is challenging to pinpoint specific areas for enhancement, there is room for better support and updates for Ansible. Having more up-to-date Ansible resources and open tools for independent use of telemetry data would be valuable, along with maintaining or improving support for integrating Juniper with external solutions.

I have been using Juniper MX Series Routers since 2008.

Juniper MX Series Routers is very stable.

The scalability of the solution is excellent. I would rate it as a ten out of ten.

We switched from Cisco to Juniper's MX Series routers because of their innovative data and control plane separation. We had been using Cisco since 1999, but Juniper's approach caught our attention. In 2008, we considered different platforms, including Alcatel and Brocade. However, Juniper's competitive pricing and top-notch product quality made the decision easy. Moving to Juniper has been a great choice for our network team.

The initial setup for Juniper's MX Series routers can be straightforward if you prefer manual configuration. We typically connect via console, load our configuration files, and get our network up and running. We haven't used automated configuration tools because they might not have been available when we started. Sometimes, when you are used to a particular setup, it is challenging to switch to a new approach.

I'm not very satisfied with the current licensing model that mandates a license for adding a new interface, which wasn't the case initially. Our needs, particularly as an educational institution, are different. We believe that the product pricing and policies should be more adaptable to better serve clients like us.

Overall, I would rate Juniper MX Series Routers as a ten out of ten. It is an excellent solution.

We use Juniper Enterprise Routers in our network. For example, we use it for VNG, our distribution portal, and our botnet. W have many different Juniper for different functions.

Juniper Enterprise Routers has a CLR and it's more reliable and faster than others.  

Juniper Enterprise Routers could improve by adding a graphical user interface(GUI). They do not have one. Most of our team has to have a background or expertise in Juniper. When compared to other solutions, they have a GUI. It will be easier for new team members to get familiar with, configure, or set up the router. Additionally, adding some monitoring tools would help us.

I have been using Juniper Enterprise Routers for approximately five years.

Juniper Enterprise Routers we have not had any major problems. However, we did have some problems but it has a backup router engine, and it did not affect our traffic and service.

Juniper Enterprise Routers is a scalable solution. The version of the solution we have is highly scalable which are the MX960 and MX480. We have some less advanced versions of the solution that are not as scalable.

I rate the technical support of Juniper Enterprise Routers a five out of five.

The support is helpful. The last time when we had to do some troubleshooting, they supported us and stayed up all night to help us troubleshoot.  

I have not used any other solution.

The initial setup of Juniper Enterprise Routers is complicated.

We had some help from the Juniper engineers in setting Juniper Enterprise Routers up. Our implementation expert moved to another company and we are having a difficult time finding a replacement.

We have four to six engineers that are experts and they are supporting this solution.

I rate Juniper Enterprise Routers a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for its router capabilities.

The solution allows for a lot of communication with the internet. 

When you configure Juniper, you are configuring in the right scheme as Juniper configurations use XML files so all configurations are allocated in necessary strings. For example, if you configure a system, some comments can be on the top of configuration and some in the middle, and some on the bottom. You have to scroll through configurations always up to down typically.  However, in Juniper, all configurations are allocated in one place. It's very convenient. 

Juniper is at the forefront of IT technology. Every new technology always can be reflected in the latest version of the firmware. If you work in data centers or internet service providers, you have to be always very flexible and update your firmware to modern configurations and so on.

Juniper is the end of the software-defined network. There are more popular routers. Right now, the leaders are Cisco, Arista, and Huawei. Juniper has to chase them and catch up to their offerings. 

I'd like to see a router that is supporting, for example, HD-1.

If you are using the Enterprise Router in a service-positive network the features they offer currently are enough. If you use it in a data center, maybe you need a supporting VX-1 or something like that to be part of the vTAP configuration for this router. 

The initial setup is not easy.

I've used the solution for ten to 12 years. 

It's one of the more stable routers. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and the performance has been good overall. 

Scalability is very good. You can change modules inside interfaces in this, for example, modular router. We've moved, for five or seven years, between different types.

That said, a half year ago I had a problem. We bought a new MX 480 for connection between two devices. One old device, which we bought it eight years ago, and a new one. We had to use an old version of mixed MIC devices inside this router to bind the new router.

We have about 20 people using the solution right now. 

I've used the Juniper Support Team for a couple of problems with Juniper. They were great. they answered my questions and responded in a reasonable amount of time.

Positive

The initial setup is not very easy. It's not complex either. It's in the middle between easy and complicated.

If you are configuring MX or 80, if you know what you need to configure and if you are configuring the data center, deployment can take one day.

However, usually, you don't know what the customer needs or you don't know which direction of configuration you can use. For example, you can configure interfaces like virtual interfaces or sub-interfaces. It looks the same, however, they have some inside configurations that take longer.

So for these devices, you should analyze for big devices for data centers and internet service providers, you should analyze what kind of configuration you do before so it'll take more time than configuration.

You do have to pay for the solution, however, there isn't an additional licensing cost. 

I'm a customer and end-user.

I'd recommend the solution.

It's a good solution with good support. You can also find technology knowledge about the product on the internet. It's not very difficult to look up more details. You can find anything in the forums, for example. In Russia, these routers are popular, which makes it possible to ask some advice from engineers from other companies. They can share their experience which is important when you reconfigure devices.

If it was in January, I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. However, right now, I'd rate it maybe eight out of ten since we don't have support in Russia any longer. Nobody can send you new details to change things if they're broken, for example.

In a service provider environment, I rely on Juniper MX Series Routers to deliver high-performance networking solutions to our customers.

By using the product, our performance has increased by around 20%.

The most valuable feature of Juniper MX Series Routers is its exceptional policy management capabilities.

The product is solid in general. The only thing that might need improvement would be the occasional downtime.

I have been using Juniper MX Series Routers for over five years.

Juniper MX Series Routers have been mostly stable, but we have encountered occasional performance issues and downtime, mainly related to hardware issues. It is a common challenge faced by any vendor. I would rate the stability as an eight out of ten.

The product is fairly scalable.

The support team is quite good. They respond quickly and have been effective in fixing our issues. I would rate the support as a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Setting up Juniper MX Series Routers is generally straightforward. It takes a few hours to deploy it.

Overall, I would rate Juniper MX Series Routers as an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as an execution router. 

We can use the router on IGP and EGP protocols. Our enterprise customers can connect in different ways. It usually depends on our enterprise customer department. If they are using two links or three links from the same handle of power, we can configure with EBDP, with our client. It offers good bandwidth support. The capacity of the routers is very good.

It is easy to initially set up.

The solution is stable.

It's scalable. 

We haven't had any issues with the routers. Everything has worked well. 

We'd appreciate it if they had a better GUI. It would be more flexible for the customers that way. For example, MicroTik is more popular with customers based on its better GUI.

I've used the solution for the last three years. 

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

We can scale the solution well. We have about 30 to 40 people on it currently. Mostly, they are engineers. 

Technical support is great. They are responsible and experienced. We have been satisfied with the level of support we get.

Positive

I've used Cisco routers as well. The price is a bit higher. We get higher capacity in Juniper for less cost.

I'm also familiar with MicroTik, which offers a better GUI than Juniper. 

The solution is simple to set up. it's not overly complex. 

I'd rate the process of implementing a five out of five in terms of ease of the process. 

We are using the latest version of the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to others. It's a very straightforward product. 

I would rate it nine 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.

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.