[j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday 18 November 2009 10:04:08 pm Steve Steiner 
wrote:

> The trend is more and more towards Ethernet.

It is, but there are still situations where you can't get 
Ethernet, particularly on long-haul, transcontinental or 
transoceanic runs (unless you're happy to forward your core 
traffic through another providers MPLS backbone, that far a 
distance).

Like the M10i, the ASR1004/6 can make a decent core router 
for a small-to-medium sized ISP. Core routers will typically 
have both Ethernet and SONET/SDH capacity, especially if 
said ISP is regional or global in nature.

Furthermore, not all economies in the world have a large 
Ethernet country network. For some, TDM, PDH and SONET/SDH 
are more widely available. Yes, you can get EoSDH, but if 
you're looking beyond 1Gbps Ethernet, in some cases, the 
cost of a 10Gbps EoSDH circuit can be the same as, or even 
greater than, an STM-64/OC-192.

> Why would
> one need/want to dump an STM64 into an M7i or equivalent
> Cisco?

For the reasons I mentioned above. Different strokes for 
different folks, Steve.

> If one were to need a large pipe filtering device
> (which I assume is what you are eluding to), I would
> assume that Juniper's response will be (will, as in
> future) an SRX with 10GE/STM64 SFP+/XFP optics.

No, I'm not alluding to using the router as some kind of 
"scrubber". This is just pure service provider transport 
stuff.

> My point is that the M7i/M10i are old and while they
> still have a play in certain applications, there are
> newer boxes  better suited to high throughput, processor
> intensive tasks.

Right, Juniper has these from the M120 and upward. Cisco 
also have these from the 7600 and upward. But if all you 
needed was the performance of the M7i/M10i CFEB, and greater 
than 1Gbps but less than (or equal to) 10Gbps (and 802.1AX 
was not a feasible option, especially if it's not Ethernet), 
the ASR1000 makes a whole lot of sense to us. We've chosen 
this platform many times where our only other recourse on 
the Juniper side was an M120.

> Back to the OP, I would never bring up a software-based
> router in such a scenario as you described.

Agree.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20091119/442d2aaa/attachment-0001.bin>