[j-nsp] virtual router, M or J?
JTyler at fiberutilities.com
Thu Mar 10 09:13:11 EST 2011
I have deployed a SRX240 with DC power.
From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Richard Zheng
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:43 AM
To: Julien Goodwin
Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] virtual router, M or J?
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Julien Goodwin <jgoodwin at studio442.com.au>wrote:
> 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.
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.
Customers may have overlapping address space and the virtual router may
interact with their CPE routers too.
The only issue is that it doesn't support DC power and can't be deployed in
J-series seems much more expensive and doesn't have nearly as many features.
DC power is available though. Just wonder what's application?
M-series seems really over priced for this application.
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
More information about the juniper-nsp