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

[Drew Weaver]

So it just doesn't work on SXI3/4a then?

thanks,
-Drew


-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Bedard [mailto:philxor at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:50 AM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: 'Paul Stewart'; sthaug at nethelp.no; chale99 at gmail.com; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX

Other vendors are event driven where a next-hop change in the FIB will notify the RIB/BGP of the change, so convergence is faster.  Cisco does similar things if you use the BGP next-hop-tracking feature in later IOS versions. 

Phil 


On Jul 29, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:

> I thought the BGP scanner and other generic performance caveats that affected the 6500s were a universal issue amongst all vendors?
> 
> -Drew
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:58 PM
> To: sthaug at nethelp.no; 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
> 
> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/