[j-nsp] MX vs. M

[GIULIANO (UOL)]

Jason,

The MX Series is a very good choice for QoS, MPLS and BGP.

You will need to use Ethernet interfaces only ?

Are you going (or thinking) to use Multicast Routing (heavy traffic) ?

M-Serie ... I think ... has better tunnel (traffic) support because of 
the ASIC processing, using the new Multiservice PIC (til 10 Gbps - 
PC-MS-500-3) for PIM-SM for example.

If you are going to use it ... please talk with your Juniper Sales 
Engineer, to check what is the better choice: MX or M-Serie.

Att,








> 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?
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 2935 (20080310) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 
>