[j-nsp] virtual router, M or J?

[Julien Goodwin]

It sounds like what you really want is just an SRX (Probably 2x240, 650
or 1400).

And unless you have overlapping address space there's no need for
virtual routers at all (and even then they'd only need to be routing
instances)

The J's at this point are essentially just (branch) SRX's with a
different chip.

On 10/03/11 16:36, Richard Zheng wrote:
> I'd like to solicit some advice on router selection. The requirement is to
> support many virtual routers, up to 50 to 100. It only needs a few GE
> interfaces. Many customers are aggregated to it. A virtual router is created
> for each customer to segregate among them. Built-in NAT and firewall
> services are used to route traffic to the Internet so that no external
> router/firewall is required. Since the traffic is not too heavy, I believe
> both M or J would do it. But I am not sure which one is better in this
> particular setup? M is hardware based, J is software based. But J seems to
> support more features although they are both based on the same software.



-- 
Julien Goodwin
Studio442
"Blue Sky Solutioneering"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20110310/d823a880/attachment.pgp>