[j-nsp] MX240

[Mark Tinka]

On Tuesday 11 May 2010 11:21:59 am Keith wrote:

> It pretty much will be used just for our main gateway
>  router. We are having a hard time deciding if it fits
>  for us. We have to get 2 ASR's to get some redundency,
>  while the MX has it all in one chassis. Has more ports
>  too.

Well, this is an important note - if you need peering 
routers, and two for redundancy, is your offer from Juniper 
and Cisco considering two boxes each, or just one?

It's fairly reasonable to take two smaller boxes for 
redundancy than have one, even though the single box 
provides hardware redundancy. I'd prefer 2x ASR1002 over 1x 
ASR1004, for example.

Richard's suggestion to consider the MX80 is a good idea, 
especially if you're looking at having two for redundancy. 
My main concern is JUNOS 10.x, especially since you're 
somewhat new to Juniper. But if you can hang in there, the 
code will improve with time. The MX80 is definitely great 
for peering... it's a role we're considering for it here, 
since it's too pricey to stick in the metro :-).

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20100511/bf2fefe9/attachment.bin>