Maybe vMX is the answer to a 1U MX at this point, depending on the throughput you really need.
Phil On 11/13/14, 1:49 PM, "Eric Van Tol" <e...@atlantech.net> wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf >Of Austin Brower >Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 6:35 AM >To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >Subject: [j-nsp] ACX is just not there (was Re: EX4550 L2Circuit/VPN to >MX80/lt Interface) > >>So far, Eric, Mark, and Phil have all stated that the ACX is not the >>right >platform for their purposes. > >>Could you elaborate on why? I've been looking at the ACX with some >>curiosity > >For starters, at least when we evaluated it last year, there was no >switching or IRB support. The chips are not Trio-based which means poor >feature parity with our existing MX deployments (it really sucks creating >separate class-of-service configs for every damn type of device). >Firewall filters could not match based upon prefixes, but rather only a >single IP address or port number. There was also no hierarchical >queuing, but I was told that it was on the roadmap for 2014. I have not >checked to see if that goal was met. Finally, the cost to reach only >half the port density of the ME3600X was also an issue. > >It's a nice router, but it simply didn't seem to "fit" within the metro >ethernet deployment model that we have. I echo Mark's statement about >being told that a 1U MX was on the way. That was three years ago and I >can't imagine why Juniper won't make one of these. We have dozens of >ME3600Xs deployed that I would gladly have used MX gear, assuming they >didn't want to charge insane license fees for H-QoS and 10GE port >enabling. > >-evt > >_______________________________________________ >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