[j-nsp] Cisco 7206 replacement
mtinka at globaltransit.net
Wed Dec 29 16:31:13 EST 2010
On Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:26:15 pm Julien Goodwin
> 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
I likely wouldn't consider VPLS a basic feature. I would,
however, expect EoMPLS to be a basic feature in fairly
modern platform. To each his own?
My issue isn't on the kinky bits. It's more on the basic
bits, e.g., plain tunneling, Multicast encapsulation, H-QoS
on high-end line cards, e.t.c.
> 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).
If you're looking at a small router to solve many of your
problems, it's not unreasonable to assume that you'll be
considering TDM/SDH/SONET ports to that end as well,
probably because WAN-based Ethernet isn't available in your
area, or that these low-speed serial/POS ports are cheaper
than FE, Gig-E or 10-Gig-E.
As for a smaller version of the MX80; to be honest, I
initially thought the MX80 would have been a 1U box, with
the capabilities of the MX-series but being able to take on,
say, Cisco's ME3600X/3800X platform. I must say, Juniper
missed the mark there - so as an Access platform, the MX80
is simply too costly.
That said, the MX80 has a number of use-cases, and we're
getting some of them to deploy in production. But as a
Metro-E Access box, it simply loses out.
-------------- 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