[j-nsp] MX vs. M

[Eugeniu Patrascu]

Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> I've been looking for GSR12406 alternatives and first was led to the  
> M120, but then was led to the MX series.  I need a device to fit into  
> a provider network at the edge, facing transit, peer, backbone and  
> core.  Heavy layer 3, heavy BGP, heavy OSPF, no QoS, no MPLS (yet) -  
> just a big-ass router with lots of wire-speed interfaces at decent  
> bang for the buck.
>
> The MX seems to be excellent on paper - line rate DPCs, layer 2 and  
> layer 3 capable, JunOS, etc but everything I've read suggests that  
> it's positioned to be an MPLS box, and not a BGP box.  Sure, it runs  
> JunOS so it can do BGP, but...
>
> I have a hard time believing the MX isn't crippled in some way,  
> because it seems to me that if it weren't, it would stand to  
> cannibalize the M Series market.
>
> Is the MX as good as it's cracked up to be?  Is the only reason  
> Juniper isn't worried about cannibalization due to the fact that the  
> MX is Ethernet only where the M is mixed media?
>   
it also has ome expensive cards when you want L3 features, like way more 
expensive than an M series router.