[j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006
mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Sun May 20 15:51:11 EDT 2012
On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 03:54:56 PM Phil Bedard wrote:
> Yes thanks for mentioning that.
> My opinion would be to use a MX480 like someone else said
> just due to the increased slot capacity, over the 9006
> or 240.
For me, the extra 2x slots on the MX480 wouldn't be a
compelling-enough reason to choose it over the ASR9006. Like
someone mentioned earlier, chassis pricing is so negligible
that it makes more sense to go for an MX480 over an MX240
like it would to go for an ASR9010 over an ASR9006. In our
case, it's mostly come down to how much we want to scale in
the space that we (don't have), which is why an MX240 has
never made any sense to us, just like the ASR1004.
Moroever, both the MX and ASR9000 chassis' are shipping
faster line cards that mean you can pack more bandwidth into
a single slot by the time you think about scaling across the
Having operated both platforms in the same network, while
I'll always have both vendors in my network as principle, my
reasons to choose one over the other would be:
o I'd prefer an ASR9000 over the MX because of the
"more intuitive" ingress packet marking on the
Cisco. Juniper can now do it on the Trio line
cards with firewall filters, but it doesn't
support marking of EXP bits. If only Juniper -
despite the numerous times I've asked - could
implement the ToS Translation Tables feature that
they do for the IQ2 and IQ2E PIC's for the M-
series routers, on the MX line, it would bring
them inline with Cisco on this platform (Juniper's
classic egress marking/rewriting has always been
o I'd prefer the MX because it implements NG-MVPN,
while Cisco are still mucking about, re-enacting
the LDP vs. BGP fiasco of old.
o I'd prefer the the Cisco if I had to mix the
classic and newer line cards in the same chassis,
as (at least for a long while), mixing DPC's and
MPC's was problematic. Word is that this is no
longer an issue - I'm due to test.
o I'd prefer the Juniper because Cisco make you pay
for ridiculous licenses just to deploy l3vpn's on
You get the point... but:
o Either router would be fine for basic IPv4, IPv6
and MPLS services.
o Either router would be fine for PE Aggregation
scenarios in Metro-E networks.
o Either router would be fine if I wanted to add
non-Ethernet line cards to it (the MX is now
sporting these, even though I'm wary it may not be
o Either router would be fine if I wanted to run
100Gbps Ethernet ports.
Hope this helps.
More information about the juniper-nsp