[j-nsp] MX240

[Keith]

On Tue, 11 May 2010, Mark Tinka wrote:

|->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 :-).

One box from Juniper, two from Cisco.

Yea, but would you like two ASR1002s over one MX240? :)

MX80 is a suggestion. Be interesting to see what the sales guys can do for
us on price for two MX80 instead of one 240.

Thanks.
Keith