Thanks Paul, Chris. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Stewart [mailto:p...@paulstewart.org] Sent: lunes, 06 de junio de 2011 12:23 p.m. To: Correa Adolfo; 'Puck Nether' Subject: RE: [j-nsp] 10G BGP EX vs MX series implementation?
EX4500 can't handle full tables and the only way to make it redundant is through 2 of them in virtual chassis (not really the same as having two RE's in the same chassis)... I wish there was a way to make MX80 more redundant too ;) Paul -----Original Message----- From: Chris Evans [mailto:chrisccnpsp...@gmail.com] Sent: lunes, 06 de junio de 2011 12:22 p.m. To: Correa Adolfo Cc: Puck Nether (juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net) Subject: Re: [j-nsp] 10G BGP EX vs MX series implementation? Ex cannot handle large tables. [Correa Adolfo] -----Original Message----- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Correa Adolfo Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 12:21 PM To: Puck Nether (juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net) Subject: [j-nsp] 10G BGP EX vs MX series implementation? Hi, I want to purchase a 10G device that supports - 4x 10G port - 3x full BGP table (ISP) plus about 5 BGP customers - 10x 1G port I was attracted to buy an MX-80 with it's 4x 10G ports unblocked. The downside of the MX80 is that it cannot be processor redundant (only from 240 and up) . Can a EX4500 handle the BGP part? It is cheaper and I think it can be redundant. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
