[j-nsp] MX80 Opinions

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, June 03, 2011 10:10:04 AM Richard A Steenbergen 
wrote:

> Price aside, anyone who wants a 12U RE needs to have
> their head examined. :) How freaking hard can it be to
> take an off-the-shelf 1U PC, slap a Juniper logo on the
> front, mark it up 20x like everything else, and sell it
> to us as a fully supported RR? I'm still confused how
> this has managed to escape their attention.

I tend to agree - it simply doesn't make sense. We looked at 
them and ended up buying M120's for this simply because the 
cheaper options from Cisco didn't support the MCAST-MVPN AFI 
we needed.

We considered a combination of M7i's + 7201's, but it does 
present its own set of soft, operational hassles. The M7i's 
alone wouldn't have been enough since it can only do 1.5GB 
of RAM (and less, effectively, if you include Junos's own 
requirements and other shared memory bits). However, now 
that there's a new RE coming out for the M7i/M10i, maybe it 
would be worth considering as a proper route reflector from 
Juniper in the future.

On the Cisco side, the new ASR1001 would make a fine route 
reflector. 16GB of control plane memory is certainly enough 
to tickle anyone. But we can only consider it if Cisco add 
support for the extra AFI's that we need. FIB-wise, the 
ASR1001 is restricted to 512,000 IPv4 entries (which baffles 
my mind), but that shouldn't be an issue if it's a dedicated 
route reflector, although troubleshooting from the box could 
be difficult if you see the route in the BGP RIB, but the 
router can't get to it.

Decisions, decisions.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20110603/ca71c21b/attachment.pgp>