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

[Julien Goodwin]

On 10/03/11 18:42, Richard Zheng wrote:
> SRX seems to be a really good candidate. It looks like all models have
> almost identical features, the only difference is performance. I will
> buy a SRX100, maybe even 2 to test high availability.

The SRX100 is a nice test platform, but it does have a bunch of annoying
limitations vs the rest of the line. (Jumbo frames, MPLS bits, a bunch
of performance), although at least you can be sure it will work on anything.

> Customers may have overlapping address space and the virtual router may
> interact with their CPE routers too.

That only needs a routing instance, not a full virtual router which
makes things easier to manage.

> The only issue is that it doesn't support DC power and can't be deployed
> in some cases.

Depends on the model. SRX240 & 650 have DC variants (see the HW guide),
SRX1400 will get DC according to the data sheet.

> J-series seems much more expensive and doesn't have nearly as many
> features. DC power is available though. Just wonder what's application?

The J's are getting on a bit, they do support some interfaces that SRX
don't (xDSL, T/E3, ISDN BRI), and except for needing ~1GB more RAM with
the -ES (AKA SRX) code still make nice routing boxes for those places
where >1Gb throughput isn't needed.

> M-series seems really over priced for this application.

The smaller M's at this point are also old and due for replacement, the
MX80 covers a lot, but wouldn't suit your needs due to (current) lack of
services.

If and when Juniper launch SONET MIC's I think that will be the end of
the smaller M's.

-- 
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/20110310/143a26fd/attachment.pgp>