[j-nsp] 10G BGP EX vs MX series implementation?

[Correa Adolfo]

Thanks Paul, Chris.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stewart [mailto:paul at paulstewart.org]
Sent: lunes, 06 de junio de 2011 12:23 p.m.
To: Correa Adolfo; 'Puck Nether'
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] 10G BGP EX vs MX series implementation?

EX4500 can't handle full tables and the only way to make it redundant is
through 2 of them in virtual chassis (not really the same as having two RE's
in the same chassis)...

I wish there was a way to make MX80 more redundant too ;)

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Evans [mailto:chrisccnpspam2 at gmail.com]
Sent: lunes, 06 de junio de 2011 12:22 p.m.
To: Correa Adolfo
Cc: Puck Nether (juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net)
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10G BGP EX vs MX series implementation?

Ex cannot handle large tables. [Correa Adolfo]

-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Correa Adolfo
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 12:21 PM
To: Puck Nether (juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net)
Subject: [j-nsp] 10G BGP EX vs MX series implementation?

Hi, I want to purchase a 10G device that supports

- 4x 10G port

- 3x full BGP table (ISP) plus about 5 BGP customers

- 10x 1G port



I was attracted to buy an MX-80 with it's 4x 10G ports unblocked.



The downside of the MX80 is that it cannot be processor redundant (only from
240 and up) .



Can a EX4500 handle the BGP part? It is cheaper and I think it can be
redundant.

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp