[j-nsp] EX Switch Question

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, January 11, 2013 01:41:47 PM Pavel Lunin wrote:

> Looks like Juniper just did not much care metro ethernet.
> BTW, it's sometimes said, that the reason is a lack of
> such a market in North America (where I've even never
> been to, thus can't judge whether this sentence is
> correct :). Another reason (more serious, I would say)
> is a strong Juniper's position in the MPLS battle, which
> doesn't allow them to invest much into the plain
> ethernet metro access technologies to not kill the goose
> that lays the golden eggs (from the pure engineering
> point of view there is also some logics in such an
> approach).

Well, Cisco must be seeing some market that Juniper aren't, 
considering these are both American companies.

Needless to say, Cisco have a healthy support for both MPLS-
based and MEF-/Carrier Ethernet-based Metro-E solutions in 
their latest platforms targeted at this space.

> With the launch of ACX series things might change and a
> reasonably cheap JUNOS-based metro ethernet-over-MPLS
> solution might become available, but this is a deal of a
> few quarters ahead, as I understand.

When the MX80 was still codenamed Taz, and all we got to 
test was a board with no chassis, I asked Juniper to rethink 
their idea about a 1U solution for access in the Metro, 
especially because Brocade had already pushed out the 
CER/CES2000, and Cisco were in the final stages of 
commissioning the ME3600X/3800X, at the time.

Epic fail on Juniper's part to think that networks will 
still go for "too big" boxes for "small box" deployments. 
The ERBU head promised that they were looking at a 1U MX80 
box that would rival the Cisco and Brocade options in the 
access, but I think they thought coming up with the MX5, 
MX10 and MX40 were far better ideas :-\.

I think Juniper will get with the program, but the damage 
will have long been done (especially, as we have now come to 
expect, you can't just roll-out current code on new boxes - 
it takes a while to break them in even with basic parity).

It's for the same reason I can't fathom why they still have 
no answer to Cisco's ASR1000. Even just for route 
reflection, I'd be very hard-pressed to choose a US$1 MX480 
with a 16GB RE over a Cisco ASR1001 costing ten thousand 
times the price.

C'mon, Juniper.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20130331/34be2fa7/attachment.sig>