> -----Original Message----- > From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp- > boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chuck Anderson > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:45 AM > To: Mark Johnson > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Upgrade from M10i? > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 02:30:32PM -0000, Mark Johnson wrote: > > We need at least 4 x 10G ports and 8 x 1G ports, IPv4/IPv6, > > OSPFv2/OSPFv3, full BGP (peering/transit), no MPLS and that's about it. > > M120 would be the next step up for M-Series. We have one and are very > happy with it. You can do 2 10gigE on CFPCs 0 and 1, plus 2 more > 10gigE with PC-1XGE-TYPE3-XFP's, plus 8 x 1gigE on PC-8GE-TYPE3-SFP. > _______________________________________________
M120 is nice, but if all you need is ethernet, the MX will be much more cost effective over time. Plus, no oversubscription on the ports. More costly upfront, but compare the cost per GE port and the MX wins hands down. Judging from the requirements of being a transit/peering edge router, I wouldn't say the DPCE-R-Q DPC is necessary, so this makes the DPCE-R-20GE-2XGE (2x10GE and 20x1GE) an attractive choice. IMO, the only reason to use the M120 is if you require non-Ethernet access. While MX can now do non-Ethernet PICs, I can't see how it's worth taking up two DPC slots to do so, unless you have slots to burn and *really really really* need to throw a SONET PIC into it to satisfy a particular part of your network design that can't be satisfied throwing an add'l router in at a fraction of the cost. -evt _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
