The stability needs to be improved.

The pricing structure could be more budget-friendly.

Improvements could be made to QFabric's lifecycle management, particularly in maintaining stable versions and extending product support. The rapid release cycle and short life span compared to competitors like Cisco can be challenging for users.

Juniper has addressed a lot of areas that they needed to improve in the new fabric solutions that they released. They have a new fabric that uses the standard structure. QFabric is a smaller fabric and Juniper has adopted it to create an industry standard. When creating a new fabric they are able to expand beyond what QFabric's limitations were. I believe their limitations were 128 nodes but with the new solution, it has no end to the nodes you have.

I do not use GUI's very much for switch stacks. I am always in the CLI. However, I do know that Juniper in the past has lacked on their GUI's, but they have been working on it.

The CLI could be a little confusing if you are new to a switching stack, and especially a fabric switching stack. If you do not understand how it is all architected it could be difficult. It is definitely not for beginners. They did their best to keep it simple, such as creating templates but it is such a complicated system that requires very high-level knowledge on entry. You have to understand what you are doing to play with the configuration of QFabric.

It works too much on rebooting and there is some memory leakage.

It is still a work in progress and is currently in beta status, While it offers some improvements, there are limitations such as a lack of GUI for managing the fabric. However, there is existing support for onboarding and configuring QFabric devices using templates. The graphical UI is expected to improve over time. Another area for improvement is the lack of support for MDN OpenFlow, an open standard for switches. Having support for all OpenFlow versions would be beneficial.

They are working on the virtualization of the actual fabric layer. They are moving away from the original spine-leaf design to a different infrastructure. Instead of having three tiers, which was the director of the interconnected nodes, they cut them back, and they still have that kind of structure. 

We are quite disappointed in Juniper switches. We have had several difficulties with upgrading the cluster Juniper. It is not very easy. We must have a disruptive upgrade to achieve the upgrade in its entity.

The disruptive upgrade was an issue for us.

It would be nice if Juniper provided the system integrator with training, similar to that of Cisco. This is very important. People the world over talk about Cisco. I worked for Juniper for approximately two-and-a-half years, from 2011 to 2013. If Juniper would follow the route of Cisco, I believe its market share would increase, as the switches are stable and scalability exists. Absent this, it faces a challenge when going up against such competitors as Cisco. Juniper's market system is driven down by the systems integrators and end users not having familiarity with the systems they use. 

As such, there is a need for more training documentation and integration with Cisco.