On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 12:01:18AM -0600, TCIS List Acct wrote: > No, we are not spaced constrained. > > I forgot to mention we are looking to spend as little money as possible, > and are OK with older gear :-) We've got 4 M7i's at the edge in production > now and could probably buy a few more to use for this, but the # of Gig-E > interfaces in the M7i might constrain us eventually (will not be a > throughput constraint at all). > > Maybe a M10i or even some of the J-series might work? These devices will > be gateway devices for our distribution switches and not sit at the edge of > the network. They just need to be able to hold at least a full routing > table (when I said 4 full tables before, that was the # of upstreams we > take routes from, but I know we have only ~300K or so routes actually > active in the router)
Existing M7i/M10i boxes are pretty darn old, and IMHO are getting very close to the end of their useful lifespans. Even with the new CFEB-E boards (which bring I-chip capabilities and put the old ABC-chip design out to pasture), RE-400 or even an upgraded RE-850 are not exactly modern or stellar performers on the control-plane, especially given the rate that JUNOS is bloating itself. For about the same price as a redundant M10i with 4xGE you could wait and get an MX80 with 4x10GE and 48x10/100/1000, and have a throughly modern platform which is FAR more likely to still be useable in 2-5 years from now. Unless you're putting this up against a $4k ebay special, you should really be far better off buying an MX80 when they come out. -- Richard A Steenbergen <r...@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
