I'm curious why the M5 would be better than an M10? Twice the port density
at a minimum upgrade cost...
Just my .02
-- William Charnock Director Core Technology Allegiance Telecom, Inc.----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Watson" <opsys@voodooland.net> To: "Guy Davies" <Guy.Davies@telindus.co.uk>; "Niels Bakker" <niels=juniper-nsp@bakker.net> Cc: <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Cisco equivilant to an 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 > > M5 has similar grunt to the original GSR (nearest to the 12004 which > > never got beyond the beta stage or even the 12008 with it's original > > line cards!). The 10xxx range might also be considered similarly > > specified as might the 12404. Neither of these seem appropriate for > > your requirements (4 x T1 & 4 x FE). > > If that was all it was ever going to do yes. I realize thats *alot* of iron. > But you have to realize this is a cable company, that is deploying a fiber > ring around the city, and has plans to offer VoIP and other whacky things as > well. I want them to have a router they can use now and grow into as they > need to. The M5 appears to scale very nicely for their plans. Even though as > configured its alot of iron to throw at 4 T's and a FE link. I like looking a > bit beyond 2 feet in front of me. > > Chris > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:38 EDT