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

[Mark Tinka]

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.