On Wednesday, December 29, 2010 04:37:25 am Keegan Holley wrote: > In all fairness cisco has some similar silliness, > although the Juniper version tends to be much more > inconvenient and costly.
Agree, but I was referring to the newer generation of platforms both vendors are putting out today, as this is where we're seeing performance and price equalizing out; more or less. > > This is more of a question, but I always assumed that > > the ASR overlapped > > somewhere between the J and M series. Right now, IMHO, the ASR1000 is way more advanced than the J-series (apples vs. oranges, really), obliterates the M7i/M10i (even with the Enhanced CFEB), and in some cases, might offer better value than the M120 or M320 depending on deployment requirements (don't forget there is now an ASR1013, and the centralized forwarding engine is growing too). Having said that, at this point in the game, the M320/T320 don't seem like wise investments. Given the cost of the FPC's + PIC's + slot count, one really should just be looking at the MX-series routers. > The software based > routers I associated with the J-series and the larger > ASR1000 platforms somewhere in the M/MX area. Is this > inaccurate? This would be about right, but the ASR1000 is a real power- choice for the low-to-mid range needs, particularly when you require a box that is flexible and cheap enough to accommodate both Ethernet and non-Ethernet interfaces. Really hope Juniper can fix this, as there really isn't much of a choice now when we're looking at platforms in this segment. Luckily for us, the ASR1000 is a decent piece of kit - but that doesn't necessarily help us sleep at night :-). Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp