[119353] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason Lixfeld)
Mon Nov 16 11:55:57 2009
From: Jason Lixfeld <jason@lixfeld.ca>
To: "net-ops@monolith-networks.net" <net-ops@monolith-networks.net>
In-Reply-To: <28807.82.132.136.147.1258386842.squirrel@webmail-vh.tagadab.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:55:14 -0500
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Cisco's ASR9000 is supposed to be in-line with the Juniper MX offering
(price-wise and feature-wise); more so than as 124xx, I hear.
On 2009-11-16, at 10:54 AM, "Gary Mackenzie" <net-ops@monolith-networks.net
> wrote:
> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering
> routers
> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to
> Juniper M
> series routers?
>
> I'm asking as the prices to upgrade to 10Gbit capable Juniper units
> (ie.
> an M120) seem prohibitively high so I'm looking to get a feel for the
> alternatives. The other obvious platform would appear to be a Cisco XR
> 12404 (or similar depending on line card requirements) but is anything
> else in common use as a peering platform?
>
> Cheers for any input.
>
> Rgds
>
> Gary
>
>
