[c-nsp] Cisco vs. Juniper

[Derick Winkworth]

#######
The MX-FPC swallows two whole DPC slots. In an MX240, that's 
just a waste of time. You're better of getting an M120 or 
M40e (M40e if you don't need STM-64/OC-192).

This makes the MX480 or MX960 more appealing when used with 
the MX-FPC. But then, that's not in the same space as the 
ASR1000 series anymore.
#########


Really?  The price difference between a 240 and 480 has
always made me wonder why someone wouldn't just buy the
480.  The difference is small.

We'll have to wait and see what the answer is going to
be to the ASR.  I suspect it will be the SRX, because
of the integrated services and flow-based QoS.








________________________________
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka at globaltransit.net>
To: Brian Spade <bitkraft at gmail.com>
Cc: sthaug at nethelp.no; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 4:37:16 AM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco vs. Juniper

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 09:10:33 am Brian Spade wrote:

> Mark, what's your thoughts on the MX240?  I'm curious now
> since you state not to get you started. :-)

Really... :-)?

Well, the MX240 is probably the smallest of the bunch (not 
considering the MX80, as it probably won't be modular enough 
to provide SONET/SDH support).



Again, Cisco are slightly better in the segment, at present. 
Juniper might do well to refresh the M7i/M10i. And I've said 
this to them, time and time again. 

As much as I adore Juniper, and with due respect to the 
ingenious design of the M7i/M10i platform, the ASR1000 
levels (and perhaps, exceeds) the playing field in this 
platform space.

Cheers,

Mark.