[j-nsp] MX240

[Derick Winkworth]

The MX80 is relatively inexpensive and has excellent port density.  With such a simple config, I'm not even that worried about it being deployed with the JUNOS it requires.  You really have three choices I think at release time:  10.1R1, 10.1R2, and 10.2R1.  

But man, a 48-port copper 10/100/1000 box with 4 built-in 10G ports.  Thats nice.  If the numbering for the model follows past convention, then this box is an 80G box right?  So this box is significantly oversubscribed.. but its 80gbps.  

Plus it has dual power supplies built in.

It kind of makes you wonder what the point of the MX240 is.  I guess with the new 3D cards you can get more capacity out of the 240, but why not just buy more MX80s?  Its only 10k for the RQ license on the MX80 (I think, I heard... but verify that).  The RQ cards on the 240/480/960 are still very expensive.

I see many MX80s in our future, personally.


Derick




________________________________
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka at globaltransit.net>
To: Keith <kwoody at citytel.net>
Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Sent: Wed, May 12, 2010 3:28:54 AM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX240

On Wednesday 12 May 2010 03:58:40 am Keith wrote:

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

Depends on the situation.

If I need only one edge router, the MX240 will be better.

If I'm peering and I need no more than a couple of Gbps per 
router from multiple partners in a PoP, I can spread my risk 
across two routers. That helps me sleep at night :-).

It really all depends on the application.

> 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.

Let us know how that goes.

Cheers,

Mark.