[c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX

[Paul Stewart]

Yes, I'd like to throw in that we are migrating to pure MX in our core ..
and moving out of 7600 platform (sup720-3bxl).  This is partly price related
although BGP performance (scanner) was the driving force on this decision.
Also, for MPLS the price/features to deploy was much more attractive to us
on the MX series too.

We have some of the MX up and running now and extremely pleased in
comparison.  Juniper isn't perfect nor is Cisco - for our needs the move to
MX for core BGP/MPLS appears to have been a really good choice.

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of sthaug at nethelp.no
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:48 PM
To: chale99 at gmail.com
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX

> Looking for options to our next upgrade from our 7200VXR platform.
> Someone suggested 7600 and the WS-X6148A-GE-TX cards with a
> SUP720-3BXL.  We're doing BGP (4-5 full iBGP peers, 13 external peers
> (3 upstream, 10 downstream), all full routes), dot1q trunks, EoMPLS
> with L2VPNs.  We will most likely do dot1q trunks to our agg switches
> at our other POPs with MPLS and L2VPNs being started/terminated on
> dot1q trunks. We're also looking to roll out IPv6 services in the next
> few months.
> 
> Our options we're looking at are a Juniper M320 w/RE-1600 and SFP PIC
> (PB-4GE-SFP).

If you're doing Ethernet only you should be looking at the Juniper
MX series (e.g. MX480) instead of M320. Much nicer port pricing.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/