[j-nsp] Cisco 7206 replacement
mtinka at globaltransit.net
Tue Dec 28 17:04:51 EST 2010
On Wednesday, December 29, 2010 04:37:25 am Keegan Holley
> In all fairness cisco has some similar silliness,
> although the Juniper version tends to be much more
> inconvenient and costly.
Agree, but I was referring to the newer generation of
platforms both vendors are putting out today, as this is
where we're seeing performance and price equalizing out;
more or less.
> > This is more of a question, but I always assumed that
> > the ASR overlapped
> somewhere between the J and M series.
Right now, IMHO, the ASR1000 is way more advanced than the
J-series (apples vs. oranges, really), obliterates the
M7i/M10i (even with the Enhanced CFEB), and in some cases,
might offer better value than the M120 or M320 depending on
deployment requirements (don't forget there is now an
ASR1013, and the centralized forwarding engine is growing
Having said that, at this point in the game, the M320/T320
don't seem like wise investments. Given the cost of the
FPC's + PIC's + slot count, one really should just be
looking at the MX-series routers.
> The software based
> routers I associated with the J-series and the larger
> ASR1000 platforms somewhere in the M/MX area. Is this
This would be about right, but the ASR1000 is a real power-
choice for the low-to-mid range needs, particularly when you
require a box that is flexible and cheap enough to
accommodate both Ethernet and non-Ethernet interfaces.
Really hope Juniper can fix this, as there really isn't much
of a choice now when we're looking at platforms in this
segment. Luckily for us, the ASR1000 is a decent piece of
kit - but that doesn't necessarily help us sleep at night
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the juniper-nsp