On Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:26:15 pm Julien Goodwin wrote: > And Cisco aren't *worse* at this? Look at the supported > platforms for VPLS for example. I can run VPLS on an M40 > if I had one (yes, with a tunnel PIC, or specific other > PIC's).
I likely wouldn't consider VPLS a basic feature. I would, however, expect EoMPLS to be a basic feature in fairly modern platform. To each his own? My issue isn't on the kinky bits. It's more on the basic bits, e.g., plain tunneling, Multicast encapsulation, H-QoS on high-end line cards, e.t.c. > I'm not so sure about that. If you're ethernet only, > *and* you need more interfaces then an ASR1002 then the > MX80 is a nice combo, but yes an even smaller > ethernet-only platform would still be great, although I > doubt Juniper will launch one as it would likely just > cannibalise sales of the MX80 (Something with just the > interfaces from an SRX1400-10G would be awesome). If you're looking at a small router to solve many of your problems, it's not unreasonable to assume that you'll be considering TDM/SDH/SONET ports to that end as well, probably because WAN-based Ethernet isn't available in your area, or that these low-speed serial/POS ports are cheaper than FE, Gig-E or 10-Gig-E. As for a smaller version of the MX80; to be honest, I initially thought the MX80 would have been a 1U box, with the capabilities of the MX-series but being able to take on, say, Cisco's ME3600X/3800X platform. I must say, Juniper missed the mark there - so as an Access platform, the MX80 is simply too costly. That said, the MX80 has a number of use-cases, and we're getting some of them to deploy in production. But as a Metro-E Access box, it simply loses out. 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