On 3/May/16 14:43, Harald F. Karlsen 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 MPLS-capable device with a proper FIB, decent control-plane and > proper MPLS features (P2MP LSPs would be nice). The ASR920 supports p2mp RSVP-TE LSP's as well as mLDP. Actually, we dropped the ACX purely because of lack of this. > Someone smarter than me should figure out how to create such a device > without cannibalizing their existing products. That's my approach. If a business is hungry enough for a market, they'll do the work. > > 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. The market is massive. > I agree. Lower height and depth is of course better, but I agree that > depth is the biggest concern for a lot of telcos. For datacenters, > height is 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?). The ASR920 is slightly less deep than the MX104 (23.9cm for the ASR920 and 24.13cm for the MX104). The 1U is the cherry on top. Mark. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
