[j-nsp] Upgrade from M10i?

[raymondh (NSP)]

Hi Phil / Mark,

Based on your requirement for 4 x 10G and 8 x 1G in a box, M120 or  
M320 are too expensive for purchasing it and the maintenance cost.

For the M120, you'll need to buy at least 3 FEBs (without any  
redundancy), each FEB supports up to 20G nonetheless per unit cost of  
the 10GE PIC w/ FPC or the cFPC for 10G are expensive. For more  
information, you can check the hardware guide on Juniper's site or  
with your local vendor or Juniper's SE / AM.

If you're going for pure ethernet I'd suggest that you go for the MX  
w/ the GE and 10G DPCE for Juniper solution or the Cisco 7600 w/ the  
SIP-600+SPA or ES-20 LCs or others. (As an example). If you do have  
the intention to run non-ethernet interfaces, the MX-FPC2/FPC3 w/ the  
PICs will be cost factor which you may want to take into consideration  
against other boxes or vendor(s)' solutions.

Cheers, thanks.



--raymondh


On Feb 5, 2009, at 4:33 AM, Phil Palanchi wrote:

> We're in the same 10G boat as Ken and Mark so I'm really  
> appreciating all
> the contributions to this thread!  Actually have a meeting next week  
> with
> our Juniper account to discuss 10G platforms so this topic is very  
> timely.
>
> We have 3 m10i's in our extranet with a couple of OC12 PICs, AS- 
> PICs. IPv4/
> someday IPv6, Multicast.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of ken lindahl
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:17 AM
> To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Upgrade from M10i?
>
> On 2/3/2009 6:30 AM, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> We need at least 4 x 10G ports and 8 x 1G ports, IPv4/IPv6,
>> OSPFv2/OSPFv3, full BGP (peering/transit), no MPLS and that's about  
>> it.
>>
>> While I love Junipers I would consider Cisco so if anyone might
>> suggest suitable Cisco models I'd also appreciate that.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Mark
>
> i'm have approximately the same requirements as Mark and considering  
> the
> MX480 vs M120 choice, so i very much appreciate the comments folks  
> have made
> about the MX series. we have an M120 and are happy with it, but  
> there is a
> substantial price difference between the MX480 and M120, and we have  
> no need
> for non-ethernet interfaces.
>
> Mark did not mention multicast explicitly; we need this router to do
> IPv4/IPv6 multicast. has anyone got any experience with multicast on  
> the MX
> series?
>
> thanks,
> ken
>
> p.s.: it's worth noting that adding "tunnel PIC capability" to an  
> MX, in
> order to have it act as an RP, uses a full slot in the chassis.
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp