On 10/03/11 16:50, Julien Goodwin wrote: > It sounds like what you really want is just an SRX (Probably 2x240, 650 > or 1400).
Scratch the 240's, from the data sheet: Maximum security zones: - SRX240 - 32 - SRX650 - 128 - SRX3k - 256 (1k should be the same, but not listed on it's data sheet) > And unless you have overlapping address space there's no need for > virtual routers at all (and even then they'd only need to be routing > instances) > > The J's at this point are essentially just (branch) SRX's with a > different chip. > > On 10/03/11 16:36, Richard Zheng wrote: >> I'd like to solicit some advice on router selection. The requirement is to >> support many virtual routers, up to 50 to 100. It only needs a few GE >> interfaces. Many customers are aggregated to it. A virtual router is created >> for each customer to segregate among them. Built-in NAT and firewall >> services are used to route traffic to the Internet so that no external >> router/firewall is required. Since the traffic is not too heavy, I believe >> both M or J would do it. But I am not sure which one is better in this >> particular setup? M is hardware based, J is software based. But J seems to >> support more features although they are both based on the same software. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- Julien Goodwin Studio442 "Blue Sky Solutioneering"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp