[j-nsp] EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Tue May 3 09:27:23 EDT 2016



On 3/May/16 14:43, Harald F. Karlsen wrote:

>  
> I would say it depends on the market they aim for. If they could price
> a small form-factor Trio-based device to compete with the smaller ASRs
> (or even ME switches) they could ramp up production and hence decrease
> production cost. I really think a lot of service providers want MPLS
> closer to the edge and I think it's a big market for anyone who makes
> a MPLS-capable device with a proper FIB, decent control-plane and
> proper MPLS features (P2MP LSPs would be nice).

The ASR920 supports p2mp RSVP-TE LSP's as well as mLDP.

Actually, we dropped the ACX purely because of lack of this.


> Someone smarter than me should figure out how to create such a device
> without cannibalizing their existing products.

That's my approach. If a business is hungry enough for a market, they'll
do the work.


>
> TLDR; I want to replace my metro switches with proper MPLS routers and
> only spend marginally more on it. I personally think there's a big
> market for whoever makes such a device.

The market is massive.

> I agree. Lower height and depth is of course better, but I agree that
> depth is the biggest concern for a lot of telcos. For datacenters,
> height is usually the biggest concern. A lot of SPs operate in both
> domains so it's all about finding the best compromise (or maybe two
> different SKUs?).

The ASR920 is slightly less deep than the MX104 (23.9cm for the ASR920
and 24.13cm for the MX104). The 1U is the cherry on top.

Mark.



More information about the juniper-nsp mailing list