On 3 May 2016 at 05:43, Harald F. Karlsen <[email protected]> wrote: > I would say it depends on the market they aim for. If they could price a > small form-factor Trio-based device to compete with the smaller ASRs (or > even ME switches) they could ramp up production and hence decrease > production cost. I really think a lot of service providers want MPLS closer > to the edge and I think it's a big market for anyone who makes a
I agree, MPLS to the edge is great idea. What do the boxes need to cost? I know someone who paid 3500EUR per MX80 (years years ago, when MX104 nor MX5/10/40 didn't exist) and deployed many hundred if not 1k of them as seamless MPLS access/edge device. MX80, MX104 are competitive against ASR9001 purely from BOM POV, as they are single chip fabricless devices. But still, similar box with pipeline/low touch asic style solution would be even cheaper, it is just how it is. I don't think JNPR will ever compete with Trio platform against ASR or ME, ACX is for that segment, but perhaps ACX is not there for all use-cases. > TLDR; I want to replace my metro switches with proper MPLS routers and only > spend marginally more on it. I personally think there's a big market for > whoever makes such a device. What are you missing in ASR920 or ACX2k? But I do think that inevitably what happened to L3 in switches will happen to MPLS, soon you just cannot buy non-consumer switch which does not do MPLS. > usually the biggest concern. A lot of SPs operate in both domains so it's > all about finding the best compromise (or maybe two different SKUs?). Interesting point. I wonder what would be the industrial design cost for height and depth optimised versions when designed at the same time. If 100% is current cost of industrial design, would it be 200%, surely not? 150%? less? -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
