[f-nsp] MLXe-4 vs ASR1006 vs MX80

[Jose Madrid]

I currently use two MLXe-16 and can attest to the fact that you are
not going to get anywhere near 1m routes.  More like 500K max.  FYI.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Drew Weaver <drew.weaver at thenap.com> wrote:
> On 26/04/2011 13:23, Drew Weaver wrote:
>> Has anyone seen any bake offs, or side by side comparisons between the
>> MLXe-4, ASR1006 or the MX80?
>>
>> I am trying to pick a router for a small regional DC and these seem
>> attractive but I don't know all of the caveats and subtleties.
>
> MLXe-4: 400G backplane, 1m ipv4 prefixes, far faster than either the
> ASR1006 or the MX80, but fewer features, particularly in terms of hqos
>
> MX80: 60G backplane, 2m ipv4 prefixes, rich feature set
>
> ASR1006: 5G output with ESP10, 4m ipv4 prefixes.  Rich feature set.
>
> Really, you need to decide what you need from a router and then choose the
> box which provides what you need.  These three boxes are completely
> different systems with different strengths and weaknesses.  If you need raw
> muscle, the mlxe4 leaves the other boxes in the dust.  If you want
> cartloads of features, you'll probably need either the mx80 or the ASR1k.
>
>
> Nick,
>
> Currently on our edge/border routers we run Sampled Netflow, iACLs, uRPF, BGP IPv4/IPv6 (full feeds, several peers), OSPFv2/v3 and I think those are all of the features we use.
>
> We just don't want to end up with a platform that isn't upgradable and has a bunch of crippling hardware limitations.
>
> thanks,
> -Drew
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundry-nsp mailing list
> foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
>



-- 
It has to start somewhere, it has to start sometime.  What better
place than here? What better time than now?