[j-nsp] Router for full routes
mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Wed Jun 27 12:07:54 EDT 2018
On 27/Jun/18 17:15, Rob Foehl wrote:
> Any thoughts on MX204s replacing ancient MX240s, assuming one can make
> the interface mix work?
> I'm looking at the replacement option vs. in-place upgrades of a mixed
> bag of old RE/SCB/DPC/MPC parts... Seems like an obvious win in cases
> with only a handful of 10G ports, less so otherwise.
We just did a round of upgrades where small edge PoP's on the MX104 were
moved to the MX480.
We also did another round of upgrades where peering and transit boxes on
the MX80 and MX104 were moved to the MX480.
This was all before the MX204 was even a commercial reality, so we
missed that boat.
Ideally, I'd be keen to run the MX204 in a peering or transit role, as
we don't really need the hardware redundancy, given we have exit PoP's
all over the world.
The MX204 is also ideal, for us, to run a 100Gbps Metro-E ring where
customers also need 10Gbps hand-off. It would also drive our existing
ASR920 Metro-E devices, eliminating the need to run the ring on DWDM.
But to your question, there is nothing ancient about the MX240. It's
just small. Look at your future needs and consider whether having those
2 line card slots running the latest-generation Trio chip will scale
better than migrating to the MX204, and that should answer your question.
More information about the juniper-nsp