[j-nsp] ASR9001 vs MX80

[Doug Hanks]

There was no technical reason behind the name of the MX5, MX10 or MX40; was just a marketing thing.

Technically the MX5, MX10, MX40 or MX80 doesn't even have a switch fabric.  Everything is done on a single Trio chipset.  Typically the switch fabric would be connected into the Trio chipset as well, but since there's no switch fabric on the MX5, MX10, MX40 or MX80 Juniper decided to plug 4x10GE XFPs where the switch fabric would have connected instead.

Please keep in mind that the *only* restriction on the MX5, MX10 and MX40 are how many ports you can use.  The bandwidth, RIB, FIB, etc have the exact same scaling numbers as the full blown MX80.


From: Tomasz Mikołajek <tmikolajek at gmail.com<mailto:tmikolajek at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:36 AM
To: Xu Hu <jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com<mailto:jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com>>
Cc: Doug Hanks <dhanks at juniper.net<mailto:dhanks at juniper.net>>, "juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>" <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] ASR9001 vs MX80

Hello.
Yes and no. Yes, but befor using Trio Chipset, No because now for example MX480 system capacity is 1.92 Tbps. If I am wrong, please correct me.

2012/8/8 Xu Hu <jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com<mailto:jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com>>
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp