[j-nsp] ASR9001 vs MX80

[Xu Hu]

Is any reason juniper choose the 5 for mx5, 40 for mx40, 480 for mx480? The number is for backplane bandwidth?

Thanks and regards,
Xu Hu

On 8 Aug, 2012, at 5:30, Doug Hanks <dhanks at juniper.net> wrote:

> Please note there's also the MX5 through MX40 that can be upgraded via a
> license to a full MX80 as well.
> 
> 
> On 8/7/12 1:56 AM, "Tima Maryin" <timamaryin at mail.ru> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> have a look at:
>> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/2012-May/023303.html
>> 
>> 
>> and the whole thread:
>> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/2012-April/023068.html
>> 
>> 
>> They are about mx480 vs ASR9006, but most of stuff still applies.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 07.08.2012 10:22, William Jackson wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> Having used the MX80 in a previous position and now being prompted to
>>> look at the ASR 9001, I was wondering if any people have operational
>>> experience with the ASR9001 platform?
>>> Or any thoughts on comparison.
>>> 
>>> These will be used for IPv4/IPv6 eBGP transit and for MPLS L2VPN/VPLS
>>> drop offs, thus all the VLAN tagging, rewriting shenanigans!!
>>> 
>>> thanks
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp