Talk:Juniper Networks

the list of acqusitions is already in this article. Sandman888 (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

content from "Juniper Networks Technical Certification Program" article added to a new "Certification" section Ckt2packet (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this reads too much like a marketing pitch? I work for Cisco, so it's not appropriate for me to edit it, but it reads somewhat like competitive collateral... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.103.25.233 (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

:I think the whole article has this problem and I have marked it. --Kvng (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:Most of this section is written about products that are no longer commercially available. Hence complaint on advertising is not verifiable . Please contribute to article if some content is not high quality (currently rated B-class) Ckt2packet (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

::I made some effort towards identifying specific issues with the article and fixing them where the solution was obvious. The article needs a lot of work to ensure that is is neutral, though. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposing a removal of this section following flags raised by from other editors.

This should take care of some buzzwords and ad-like content.

Ckt2packet (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, I've been looking at this article, and see some missing links (like the LN Series http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/release-independent/junos/information-products/pathway-pages/ln1000-series/) and some broken links (the link to "UNOS" rather than "JUNOS" ). From the instructions about editing, it seems that I should request these changes, rather than make them as I have a COI. Suggestions?

Glasssculpture (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

:I fixed the UNOS --> Junos issue. Disavian (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

:Thx! Glasssculpture (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

:Giving it all she can take!

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:A8A6:DF42:3C8F:7CFA (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

{{edit COI|A}}

I have a financial connection with Juniper Networks.

The current article looks basically on track to me, but contains a large volume of primary sources and is about ten years out-of-date. It includes trivial promotions of the sales staff, but not more significant recent corporate issues. It contains a dedicated Criticisms and Controversy section, which I feel is equally as non-neutral as the dedicated Awards section, especially since it relies on primary sources and does not meet the criteria at WP:ORGAWARDS.

I've prepared what I feel is a GAN-ready draft at user:CorporateM/Juniper Networks that I was hoping a disinterested editor may consider as a replacement for the current. I realize the impossibility of someone reviewing a 100+ cite article on a $4 billion+ organization with almost 20 years of history. I'll be poking around a bit to see if I can find someone with enough knowledge on the topic to be able to tell whether it's neutral. CorporateM (Talk) 19:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

:For the sake of transparency and future record-keeping, I'm providing links to where this draft has been discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing/Computer_networking_task_force&oldid=657397395#Juniper_Networks here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CorporateM/Juniper_Networks&oldid=657439554 here]. CorporateM (Talk) 15:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Talk:Juniper Networks/GA1}}

{{edit COI|A}}

The current Lead contains the following text:

:::"Juniper grew to $673 million in annual revenues by 2000, challenging Cisco's once-dominant market-share in networking products."

In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CorporateM/Juniper_Networks#Outside_view this discussion] with {{ping|Thincat}}, we seemed to agree on a slightly modified version with a specific date and market-share reference:

:::"Juniper grew to $673 million in annual revenues by 2000. By 2001 it had a 37 percent share of the core routers market, challenging Cisco's once-dominant market-share."

Though I am making many other minor tweaks boldly in response to GA review feedback, because this content is about a competitor, I felt it would be more appropriate to use Request Edit. CorporateM (Talk) 21:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

::Also, there are several errors in the following text, some of which were recently introduced by an IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juniper_Networks&type=revision&diff=675528272&oldid=675526187 here] and some of which were my own errors

::::In October 2013, Juniper introduced another proprietary protocol network architecture called MetaFabric for a new set of switches, the QFX5100 family, that were needed to adopt the MetaFabric architecture.[119]

::Corrections are as follows:

::*[http://www.eweek.com/networking/juniper-launches-metafabric-network-architecture-switches.html The source] says "networking architecture" as oppose to "networking protocol"

::*Juniper said Metafabric is not "proprietary". Checking the source and doing a Google search seem to verify this. The only thing I found in a quick Google search is [http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/2240208185/MetaFabric-The-new-Juniper-data-center-architecture-evolves-QFabric here] where a Juniper spokesperson says it is not proprietary.

::*The statement "not IETF or IEEE compliant..." is currently unsourced, but I did find a source for it not being TRILL compliant.{{cite web | last=Duffy | first=Jim | title=Industry split on data center network standards | website=Network World | date=March 22, 2011 | url=http://www.networkworld.com/article/2201242/data-center/industry-split-on-data-center-network-standards.html | accessdate=August 19, 2015}} The source says this is because Juniper is an advocate against TRILL (not really sure if any of this belongs on this page though, rather than a sub-page on Metafabric if one exists)

::* I wrote "the QFX5100 family, that were needed to adopt the MetaFabric architecture", but the source just says "that is one of the foundations of the new architecture" not that the switch is required.

:: CorporateM (Talk) 22:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

:::*Those all look reasonable to me, so I implemented the edit request. Please check my work for errors. As always when I respond to edit requests, I take full responsibility for any changes I make. Also, I have no COI regarding Juniper or their competitors (The area of engineering I work in mostly involves microcontrollers that cost less than a dime -- the sort of thing you find inside toasters and children's toys). --Guy Macon (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

::::Thanks {{ping|Guy Macon}}! Just one nit-pick. It seemed a bit awkward that it says Metafabric is "for" a set of switches. I double-checked the source and it doesn't look like it's built specifically for the switch. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::Good point. What wor.ding would you suggest? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Guy Macon}} "MetaFabric for and a new set of switches" CorporateM (Talk) 17:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

::I researched through the Juniper equipment documentation and I have not found any Juniper equipment that is capable of IEEE 802.1aq shortest path bridging. 166.173.249.212 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_acquisitions_by_Juniper_Networks#Lead FYI] - I've posted a suggestion that we re-purpose the well-sourced summary of Juniper's acquisition history from this article to the sub-article, as suggested by WP:Summary style for sub-articles. CorporateM (Talk) 20:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I read the article and I have a few comments.

1. Most of the references to Juniper Networks and Cisco Systems only use the first part of the name of the companies. I fixed the introduction and the next two paragraphs but then I stopped because the amount of fixing is rather large.

2. Internet is a proper word and needs to be capitalized. I see many instances of it that are not capitalized and need to be fixed. I fixed a few but, again, more need to be fixed.

3. Some information about the crash of the company stock after 2000 should be included in the article.

4. "Juniper promoted its products as stable enough to make IT staff bored and Cisco announced lab tests from Light Reading proved its products were superior to Juniper, whereas the publication itself reached the opposite conclusion." I don't understand this sentence. It seems contradictory and illogical.

ICE77 (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

To understand the Juniper Networks system architecture in principle,

Would it be ok to write the Juniper Device is based on O/S Linux based system? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)