[j-nsp] Cisco 7206 replacement

Julien Goodwin jgoodwin at studio442.com.au
Tue Dec 28 23:26:15 EST 2010

On 29/12/10 04:39, Mark Tinka wrote:
> The things that currently annoy me with Juniper are:
> 	- JUNOS has been terrible, hopefully 2011 is a
> 	  better year.

Absolutely, although I've found that only really in the SRX line where
both 10.3 & 10.4 are unusable as RPD never comes up (*second* JTAC case
for this to be opened this week).

> 	- Strange and silly hardware restrictions that
> 	  inconvenience you when you least expect it, e.g.,
> 	  lack of Translation Tables support on the MX
> 	  DPC's, lack of H-QoS on the current 16-port 10Gbps
> 	  MPC card, the need for additional Services PIC's
> 	  for certain basic services (I agree that very
> 	  advanced services would scale best when offloaded
> 	  to dedicated hardware), e.t.c.

And Cisco aren't *worse* at this? Look at the supported platforms for
VPLS for example. I can run VPLS on an M40 if I had one (yes, with a
tunnel PIC, or specific other PIC's).

> 	- No decent contender to Cisco's ASR1000 platform -
> 	  it currently makes no sense for us to invest in
> 	  the M7i/M10i boxes, and yet the M120 and MX-series
> 	  boxes are too large. I hope this can be rectified
> 	  soon.

I'm not so sure about that. If you're ethernet only, *and* you need more
interfaces then an ASR1002 then the MX80 is a nice combo, but yes an
even smaller ethernet-only platform would still be great, although I
doubt Juniper will launch one as it would likely just cannibalise sales
of the MX80 (Something with just the interfaces from an SRX1400-10G
would be awesome).

Julien Goodwin
"Blue Sky Solutioneering"

More information about the juniper-nsp mailing list