[j-nsp] MX vs. M

[Jose Sanchez]

Here is a recent announcement in the Juniper DPC datasheet:
MX-FPC
MX-FPCs occupy two slots and are designed to accept up to two
physical interface cards (PIC) commonly used with the Juniper M-
and T-series routers. These modules allow the MX-series to support
non-ethernet interfaces and the PIC portability between M-, T-
and MX-series platforms provide common sparing and
investment protection.

MXFPC-2
PB-10C48-SON-B-SFP
PB-40C3-10C12-SON2-SFP
PB-40C3-40C12-SON-SFP
PB-4CH012-STM4-IQE-SFP
PB-1CHOC48-STM16-IQE-SFP

MXFPC-3
PC-10C192-SON-VSR
PC-10C192-SON-XFP
PC-40C48-SON-SFP


On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:02:51PM +0100, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Not really. It's Ethernet only, and no service PICs or anything like
> > that (so if you need RE-based sampled Netflow you're okay, but you
> > can't do the sampling rates that an M/T could with a suitable PIC.
> > Also, the 10Gig ports *will* handle WAN PHY (this is even documented).
>
> Yes, excellent WAN PHY support, feels just like you've got a SONET
> interface with complete and detailed alarms.
>
> One thing I forgot to mention, the only feature that should be there but
> isn't is RE-based RPM support. Everything else is fully implemented as of
> current code, including GRES, ISSU (well it works as well as on an
> M-series at any rate), OAM, etc.
>
> --
> Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>