On 10/03/11 18:42, Richard Zheng wrote: > SRX seems to be a really good candidate. It looks like all models have > almost identical features, the only difference is performance. I will > buy a SRX100, maybe even 2 to test high availability.
The SRX100 is a nice test platform, but it does have a bunch of annoying limitations vs the rest of the line. (Jumbo frames, MPLS bits, a bunch of performance), although at least you can be sure it will work on anything. > Customers may have overlapping address space and the virtual router may > interact with their CPE routers too. That only needs a routing instance, not a full virtual router which makes things easier to manage. > The only issue is that it doesn't support DC power and can't be deployed > in some cases. Depends on the model. SRX240 & 650 have DC variants (see the HW guide), SRX1400 will get DC according to the data sheet. > J-series seems much more expensive and doesn't have nearly as many > features. DC power is available though. Just wonder what's application? The J's are getting on a bit, they do support some interfaces that SRX don't (xDSL, T/E3, ISDN BRI), and except for needing ~1GB more RAM with the -ES (AKA SRX) code still make nice routing boxes for those places where >1Gb throughput isn't needed. > M-series seems really over priced for this application. The smaller M's at this point are also old and due for replacement, the MX80 covers a lot, but wouldn't suit your needs due to (current) lack of services. If and when Juniper launch SONET MIC's I think that will be the end of the smaller M's. -- 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