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

[Julien Goodwin]

On 10/03/11 16:50, Julien Goodwin wrote:
> It sounds like what you really want is just an SRX (Probably 2x240, 650
> or 1400).

Scratch the 240's, from the data sheet:

Maximum security zones:
- SRX240 - 32
- SRX650 - 128
- SRX3k - 256 (1k should be the same, but not listed on it's data sheet)

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


-- 
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/20110310/89610f92/attachment-0001.pgp>