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

[Richard Zheng]

This is fantastic! Thanks for the valuable input.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Julien Goodwin
<jgoodwin at studio442.com.au>wrote:

> 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"
>
>