On Tue, 11 May 2010, Mark Tinka wrote: |->On Tuesday 11 May 2010 11:21:59 am Keith wrote: |-> |->> It pretty much will be used just for our main gateway |->> router. We are having a hard time deciding if it fits |->> for us. We have to get 2 ASR's to get some redundency, |->> while the MX has it all in one chassis. Has more ports |->> too. |-> |->Well, this is an important note - if you need peering |->routers, and two for redundancy, is your offer from Juniper |->and Cisco considering two boxes each, or just one? |-> |->It's fairly reasonable to take two smaller boxes for |->redundancy than have one, even though the single box |->provides hardware redundancy. I'd prefer 2x ASR1002 over 1x |->ASR1004, for example. |-> |->Richard's suggestion to consider the MX80 is a good idea, |->especially if you're looking at having two for redundancy. |->My main concern is JUNOS 10.x, especially since you're |->somewhat new to Juniper. But if you can hang in there, the |->code will improve with time. The MX80 is definitely great |->for peering... it's a role we're considering for it here, |->since it's too pricey to stick in the metro :-).
One box from Juniper, two from Cisco. Yea, but would you like two ASR1002s over one MX240? :) MX80 is a suggestion. Be interesting to see what the sales guys can do for us on price for two MX80 instead of one 240. Thanks. Keith _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp