[j-nsp] ACX is just not there (was Re: EX4550 L2Circuit/VPN to MX80/lt Interface)

[Phil Bedard]

Maybe vMX is the answer to a 1U MX at this point, depending on the 
throughput you really need.  

Phil 




On 11/13/14, 1:49 PM, "Eric Van Tol" <eric at atlantech.net> wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf 
>Of Austin Brower
>Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 6:35 AM
>To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>Subject: [j-nsp] ACX is just not there (was Re: EX4550 L2Circuit/VPN to 
>MX80/lt Interface)
>
>>So far, Eric, Mark, and Phil have all stated that the ACX is not the 
>>right >platform for their purposes.
>
>>Could you elaborate on why? I've been looking at the ACX with some 
>>curiosity 
>
>For starters, at least when we evaluated it last year, there was no 
>switching or IRB support.  The chips are not Trio-based which means poor 
>feature parity with our existing MX deployments (it really sucks creating 
>separate class-of-service configs for every damn type of device).  
>Firewall filters could not match based upon prefixes, but rather only a 
>single IP address or port number.  There was also no hierarchical 
>queuing, but I was told that it was on the roadmap for 2014.  I have not 
>checked to see if that goal was met.  Finally, the cost to reach only 
>half the port density of the ME3600X was also an issue.
>
>It's a nice router, but it simply didn't seem to "fit" within the metro 
>ethernet deployment model that we have.  I echo Mark's statement about 
>being told that a 1U MX was on the way.  That was three years ago and I 
>can't imagine why Juniper won't make one of these.  We have dozens of 
>ME3600Xs deployed that I would gladly have used MX gear, assuming they 
>didn't want to charge insane license fees for H-QoS and 10GE port 
>enabling.
>
>-evt
>
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp