This is fantastic! Thanks for the valuable input. On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Julien Goodwin <jgood...@studio442.com.au>wrote:
> 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" > > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp