-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> * Guy.Davies@telindus.co.uk (Guy Davies) [Thu 06 Dec 2001, 22:13
> CET]:
> >> It's just a base M5 with the 4 port T1 PIC and the 4 port
> FE PIC. And
> >> dual PS's. Other then that its just a base M5.
> > That's a very poor use of the potential of the M5. The M5
> is heavily
> > overspecified for this function. You could easily do what
> you've got
> > there with a 3600. Having said that, the 3600, 7200 and
> the 7500 are
> > totally outclassed with respect to sheer grunt and port
> density. The
>
> I'd like to see a 3600, even a 3660, forward 800 Mbps worth of
> packets (4x FastEthernet full-duplex), though. Also, last I
> checked
> it doesn't
> come with dual power supplies, although the 5300 is also 2U and has
> a nifty small dual-AC power supply, so Cisco can make one that fits
> the form size.
True. But it's not likely to be putting 800Mbps through a box with
only 4 T1s.
[..snip..]
> > So, as you can see, the M5/M10 really have no truly direct
> comparison
> > in the Cisco range. My advice is to check the website.
> All the info
> > is there. Alternatively, you could take Niels' advice and
> > contact your local Cisco dealer. I'm sure they'd be happy to
> > advise you on the positive aspects of their products ;-)
>
> The nice thing about an M5 is the scalability. You can order
> 4-port FastEthernet adapters for it; what Cisco product (that is
> not
> a Catalyst
> in disguise) has this? A 7206VXR has six slots but you can
> only fit up
> to eight FastEthernet ports in them (or fourteen if you go
> PA-FE-2ISL, but you won't get both ports running at capacity then).
> The M5 can be stuffed with 48 of them you'll still be able to run
> them all at full capacity.
>
> Sorry for the Cisco-bashing, but this is juniper-nsp after all. :-)
Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of Juniper (I work for a Juniper
Partner/Cisco Partner!). I'm not averse to pointing out the
limitations of any vendor's kit if the situation warrants it and I
understand all the benefits of the Juniper architecture. In a way,
I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and point out the kind of
things that Cisco might try to throw at Chris' customer. I have the
same reservations about Cisco's 10000 as Neils and I feel that the
12404 is potentially even greater overkill than the M5 (in a bigger
form factor). Both are *very* expensive.
> The problem here basically is that your requirements are not at all
> hefty from the looks of it, which makes several Cisco products able
> to fill the same hole in your topology. However, none of them will
> scale to the heights the M5 can attain. The question is more: How
> much
> traffic do you reckon your customer will be pushing through this
> box before it has been written off?
As Neils has pointed out, the main benefit of the M5 is it's
scalability (you could even say that the M10 might be a better bet).
I was just basing my comments on Chris' stated requirement for 4 T1s
and 4 FE (he made no mention of cable operators and fiber rings in
his first - or second - email ;-). Given his subsequent email, I'd
have no reservations in recommending the M5/M10. The only limitation
of the M5 being that you're limited to GE/OC12 whereas the M10/M20
could give you OC48 (if that's a projected requirement).
Regards,
Guy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.1
iQA/AwUBPA/pRY3dwu/Ss2PCEQK3ewCeJIs7TeW+XhPHZgZbRsIN1304IG8AoMJh
zz6HcBRH0yCBL3SzqalgXQCC
=ygcE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:38 EDT