Re: [j-nsp] MX80 vs MX40?

> On Apr 16, 2016, at 12:58 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > > > MX5 through MX80 are the same physical hardware, with all the same > physical ports built-in. The lower models have some ports disabled by > licenses; only buy what you need today, and you can "upgrade" with a >

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10002 as P Router

On 17/Apr/16 19:34, Saku Ytti wrote: > There is upside to that strategy, if you drop from long list all > devices which have a problem, but problem you can workaround with, you > don't have to build a network. As with any network build, you have to make compromises. There are many boxes I have

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10002 as P Router

On 17 April 2016 at 20:28, Mark Tinka wrote: >> Nope. But you need Internet in VRF, if you can't put sufficient filter on >> lo0. > > I just wouldn't buy the platform in the first place, but that's just me. There is upside to that strategy, if you drop from long list all

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10002 as P Router

On 17/Apr/16 18:09, Saku Ytti wrote: > Nope. But you need Internet in VRF, if you can't put sufficient filter on lo0. I just wouldn't buy the platform in the first place, but that's just me. > Why? I imagine the cost is same. I don't imagine individual route > entries in RIB or in FIB have

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10002 as P Router

Le 17/04/2016 à 12:43, Saku Ytti a écrit : I'm not really clued-up on QFX5k. I know that that TCAM size may be challenge for stuff like lo0 protection. Control-plane scale may be challenging if you run BGP. But if you put Internet in VRF and run BGP free core, both of these are irrelevant.

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10002 as P Router

On 17 April 2016 at 14:51, Mark Tinka wrote: > You don't really need to put the Internet in a VRF to enjoy a BGP-free core. Nope. But you need Internet in VRF, if you can't put sufficient filter on lo0. > I'd imagine that resources become more of a concern when you put the

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 vs MX40?

Same options are also available on MX104. MIC slots and SFP+ ports are enabled by license. Both platforms have same capabilities and are rated at 80G. The license does NOT affect this as some think. RE on MX104 is slightly better than MX80. Also the MX104 has redundant replaceable RE and the

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10002 as P Router

On 17/Apr/16 12:43, Saku Ytti wrote: > I'm not really clued-up on QFX5k. I know that that TCAM size may be > challenge for stuff like lo0 protection. Control-plane scale may be > challenging if you run BGP. But if you put Internet in VRF and run BGP > free core, both of these are irrelevant.

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 vs MX40

On 17 April 2016 at 02:46, Amarjeet Singh wrote: > I would not recommend refurbished routers. MX80 only makes sense gray/refurb. MX104 is cheaper than MX80 new. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10002 as P Router

On 17 April 2016 at 12:56, Raphael Mazelier wrote: > At a much lower price, what do you think of using a qfx5100 as P/LSR router > ? The mpls support look correct, and it have a lot of 10G ports. I'm not really clued-up on QFX5k. I know that that TCAM size may be challenge for

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10002 as P Router

On 17/Apr/16 11:56, Raphael Mazelier wrote: > > Yep me too. > > At a much lower price, what do you think of using a qfx5100 as P/LSR > router ? The mpls support look correct, and it have a lot of 10G ports. Looking at the notes, it should be fine as a P router, even if you are running native

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10002 as P Router

Le 16/04/2016 à 21:29, Saku Ytti a écrit : I wasn't curious on similarities, I was curious on dissimilarities :). I suspect it's exactly the same PEchip physically. And I have no complaint on that, I think multi-branding is excellent business strategy. Yep me too. At a much lower price,

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 vs MX40

Even if that is not the OP's question, pay also attention for the same ROHS2 crap compliance regarding the SRX series. I fan tell about it, we have been bitten by it. My 2 cents. > Le 17 avr. 2016 à 04:30, Olivier Benghozi a > écrit : > > By the way, if you