[j-nsp] ASR9001 vs MX80
jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 8 12:24:46 EDT 2012
Is any reason juniper choose the 5 for mx5, 40 for mx40, 480 for mx480? The number is for backplane bandwidth?
Thanks and regards,
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:
>> have a look at:
>> and the whole thread:
>> They are about mx480 vs ASR9006, but most of stuff still applies.
>> On 07.08.2012 10:22, William Jackson wrote:
>>> 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!!
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
More information about the juniper-nsp