[c-nsp] Peering Router/Switch

[Mark Tinka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 5/Oct/15 13:14, Gert Doering wrote:

> > > I wouldn't actually consider the PPC based REs particularily
well-suited > for a *peering* router (read: "lots of BGP activity" = "a
fast CPU and/or > a good multi-process BGP implementation is what you
want") - this RE is > almost as slow as a sup720, and I wouldn't use one
of those either.

Another reason I wouldn't spend money on an MX80.

Even though the MX104 is a PPC-based platform, I'm okay to spend money
on that because the RE is modular.

Mark.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=PJww
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----