[j-nsp] EX4550 L2Circuit/VPN to MX80/lt

[Philip Palanchi]

> the lack of LSR functionality in the EX won't work for us.

I'm curious to know what MPLS features or functionalities are lacking on the EX4550 in comparison to MX series.


Thanks,
Phil

----- Original Message -----
From: juniper-nsp-request at puck.nether.net
To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 11:10:51 AM
Subject: juniper-nsp Digest, Vol 144, Issue 16



Message: 2
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 06:34:43 -0500
From: Austin Brower <ops at bobman.net>
To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] ACX is just not there (was Re: EX4550 L2Circuit/VPN
	to	MX80/lt Interface)
Message-ID: <878B0D0E-5CF8-44B8-ABB8-2396EB781735 at bobman.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Nov 12, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Eric Van Tol <bleearg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
> 
>> Juniper have continued to come short in this area. And no,
>> the ACX doesn't cut it.
> 
> Agreed.  ACX is just not there.  It baffles me why Juniper has left
> this market untapped.  The mid-range MX is just too expensive and too
> big for our deployments and the lack of LSR functionality in the EX
> won't work for us.

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 as a migration tool for some of my fiber constrained sites where I have low capacity SONET systems (which are very slow to leave the network) and 1Gbps Ethernet switching (utilizing finicky ERPS).

Thanks,
Austin