Hi, On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 12:06:49PM +0100, James Bensley wrote: > On 5 October 2015 at 10:24, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > > And on the Juniper side, I'd go for the MX104. > > Or an MX80, that would be cheaper. I've done this in the past, it > works very well.
I wouldn't actually consider the PPC based REs particularily well-suited
for a *peering* router (read: "lots of BGP activity" = "a fast CPU and/or
a good multi-process BGP implementation is what you want") - this RE is
almost as slow as a sup720, and I wouldn't use one of those either.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
