Juniper MX Series Routers Reviews

We primarily use the solution for connection with the internet and with other organizations through Juniper. We use it for interconnectivity.

The product protects us from multiple threats from the internet. Juniper is the first layer of protection.

It's so simple to use and intuitive. It offers high protection and I like it. It's user-friendly and flexible.

It is easy to set up.

The solution can scale. 

The stability is good.

Technical support is helpful.

We've witnessed an ROI.

The integration could be better. It was a difficult configuration with integration with other systems. Others are more user-friendly when it comes to integration. 

I'd like to see more notifications available via both SMS and email. 

I've been using the solution for ten years. It's been a decade. 

The solution is stable. It's one f the most stable products on the market. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The product is scalable. It's not hard to expand as needed. 

We have around 300 users. 

We may increase usage in the future, however, I do not have exact details. 

Technical support is great. I'd put it at the same level as Sophos. They're great.

I work with FortiGate, Juniper, and Cisco. Fortigate may be a bit more flexible than Juniper. It does have a cloud sandbox we can use, for example.

Previously, we used ASA, Cisco ASA, and changed to Juniper, as it was really difficult and it is not as user-friendly. Juniper is more stable and easier.

The solution is simple and straightforward. It is not complex at all. I'd rate it a three out of five in terms of ease of setup. 

The last time we deployed Juniper was six months ago and we had a pretty good time. After six months, we replaced all the requirements with the latest version of Juniper and it took, with migration, maybe three hours. It was easy.

We have four people on staff that handle deployment and maintenance. These include an engineer, a specialist, and a person well versed in analysis. 

We handled the deployment in-house. We did not need outside assistance from integrators or consultants. 

We've seen an ROI of over $200,000 and maybe as much as $400,000.

We pay a yearly licensing fee. I can't speak to the exact price. There's only the licensing fee and not any extra ancillary fees.

We did look at pfSense and Sophos, however, we decided on Fortinet and Juniper. 

I'm a customer and end-user.

We always download the last update for this project, however, I don't remember the number of the update.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. It's easy to use, stable, and continuously improving. 

We are a wireless internet service provider that distributes internet service. We deal with two different service providers and the hardware we use includes Juniper Enterprise Routers.

This product is being used as my edge router.

The most valuable feature is reliability. The hardware has been very good.

The web interface can be improved. It should be more user-friendly. I can't set up everything because it is a little bit hard to use.

I have been using the Juniper routers for between four and five months.

The stability of this product is very good.

Scalability-wise, this is a good solution.

I have approximately 400 users.

I would rate their technical support and eight out of ten. I would like to see a better product library or knowledge base. The manuals are there, but the information is very technical. Having more examples would be helpful.

I also use hardware from MikroTik and Ubiquity. I found that the hardware from MikroTik wasn't very good, and Juniper is more reliable.

I found the initial setup a little bit hard because I was learning it from the Juniper website as I was doing it. The deployment took about two months.

I deployed this solution on my own.

Overall, this is a very good product. It is a very stable solution and I can recommend it. The only difficulty is that it is hard to set up.

I would rate this solution and eight out of ten.

We use it for Internet pairing. 

The full Internet DGP is a valuable feature. They used to provide high gig options, but now we have increased capacity and look for more options.

Juniper can work on their capacity, and ability to support BGP protocols. The functionality is limited in Juniper. There is a disruption in the convergence of network change. There is also a change in license which needs to be looked at after each time. Automation can also be improved.

I have been using Juniper MX Series Router for 15 years now. 

It is a stable solution. I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. 

The scalability is currently not satisfactory. We have a device that needs ten terabytes of gig capacity, but currently, Juniper provides four Terabytes, which isn’t satisfactory for our needs. I would rate it a seven out of ten.

The support is good. 

Positive

Before Juniper, we used Cisco. We decided to shift due to the capacity, volume, and price differences. Currently, we are looking into Arista Networks.

The initial setup was not a very complex process and took three weeks. It went according to the plan.

We have to pay for the device and licensing. The support service requires additional costs.

It is a good product. It has been a very stable product in terms of functionality, capacity, and transmit limit. The support was very quick and documentation is readily available. I would rate the product an eight out of ten overall. 

We use it as a central router for both 10G and 100G ports. We are an internet exchange, so we need to have a router for connecting our partners. We use Juniper Enterprise Router only in the backbone application. We don't have any end users. Therefore, we don't heavily use access lists or filters, but we bought a firewall card in order to protect our root servers, web servers, etc.

It is very stable and scalable.

The third-level customer support coming from Juniper itself could be much better. To get assistance from Juniper, we sometimes have to wait for weeks and months. I don't really appreciate that. Their support should be faster.

I have been using this solution for around two years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable.

We are very happy with the local support provided by our local system integrator, but to get assistance from Juniper, we sometimes have to wait for weeks and months. I don't really appreciate that. Their support should be faster.

Our experience is different for different Juniper boxes. The installation was okay for MX100, but it was not that easy for MX200. For QFX5120, it was a nightmare.

We are not an end-user provider. We are a backbone company. Internet exchange is the central point for the internet in every region. We have connected around 10 customers on one router. We have three routers in our network.

It is not a huge installation. You just need two people for its installation. My partner and I have 25 years of experience in the business, and we install it ourselves. We also take support from a system integrator. For the second level of support, we use JTAC.

I would rate Juniper Enterprise Routers a ten out of ten. We plan to keep using this solution.

This is one of our routers. We use it for routing the network of the university.

I would say it is very user-friendly.

There are some memory issues. I don't know if it is already fixed in the later version. 

I would like a graphical user interface. Again, we don't know if it has already been included as we're using a pretty old version.

We have been using it for ten years now. We are not using the latest update, unfortunately.

It is a very stable solution. I would rate it nine out of ten.

It is not scalable, unfortunately. It has a limited interface number, so we cannot scale it very well. About 4,000 users in our organization take advantage of its services.

I don't have any experience with their technical support.

We used Cisco routers. It was quite expensive to maintain, thus we switched it.

The setup was very straightforward.

It's a very good and reliable product. I would rate it eight out of ten. I can recommend it but not over the other routers in the market. We had a marvelous experience with it, but we don't have extensive experience with other vendors.

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.

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.