|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka@globaltransit.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:28:13 +0800 In-Reply-To: <4F1ED34D.5080309@nmsu.edu> Reply-To: mtinka@globaltransit.net Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org --nextPart3955307.s6ZfRZLUKb Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:50:37 PM Matt Craig wrote: > They are competing in some things. There are differences > that will make you choose ASR1000 over MX series, but > alot of people are choosing either one of the other for > many of the same jobs, mainly upgrading to > straight-forward L3 1/10 gig aggregation. I know some > people who've had ASR1000s and MXs on the plate and > chose the MXs. I've also known some who's chosen the > ASR1000s. It just really depends on what you need. When it comes to peering or upstream boxes, we've always=20 gone with smaller, multiple units rather than bigger, single=20 ones, e.g., ASR1002 vs. CRS or MX80 vs. M120, sort of thing.=20 As one wants to spread peering/upstream links across=20 different boxes to enhance redundancy, one can't afford to=20 be buying bigger boxes for each these links. What this has meant is that for a while now, we've been=20 happy with the ASR1000 because at some point, it was more=20 feature-ready than the MX80. However, the MX80 has now=20 caught up, and is certainly a serious contender if we're=20 looking at new purchases (but then, there is now the=20 ASR9001, whenever it starts shipping). However, this only works if our connectivity arrangements=20 are Ethernet. If we plan to have both Gig-E and non-Gig-E=20 capacity in a router, and we need to be able to push a=20 couple of Gbps through it (including one or more 10Gbps=20 hook-ups), then the ASR1000 is still a winner. This is where=20 the MX80 can't compete; and while the MX80 and ASR1000 are=20 somewhat of an apples vs. oranges comparison, there really=20 ins't anything coming from Juniper at all in this space. So=20 one is forced to compare what comes closest. > Actually something as an alternative to both I am > researching is the Brocade MLX series. They have > different, more efficient, and refreshing architecture; > and phenomenal cost (half the cost of ASR1000/MX or > less). Gonna do a trial shortly to see if it all lives > up to the marketing or if its too good to be true. I > also know some peer institutions who have dumped both > Cisco and Juniper for Brocade's Ethernet/IP lines. Not > a single bad word so far. We reviewd the MLX against the 7600 and M320 many years ago.=20 These days it would be the MLX against the ASR9000 and=20 MX240/480/960. It didn't have the feature set we needed, but=20 that was a while back. Our national exchange point have been happy with them, using=20 VPLS to run the fabric (I think AMS-IX do the same, too).=20 But that's a relatively simple deployment. I know some large carriers using them extensively, but not=20 intimately enough to tell you whether they're really happy=20 or not. Mark. --nextPart3955307.s6ZfRZLUKb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJPHtwgAAoJEGcZuYTeKm+GPG0P/1rl5lffsaPmuFVN6XNhNZ5x esKrL56ODWV3MI7ytjQil+1ekU9VfI51vUY1JpbguB0j6QG//v3NCDQIiCef5W4Q VXYXMZsacd0elAa9zB25lGUOQJd2iQofKW3U7yC8/KFB1QfMBFtjD3ngJHdb0DPr rgp0Qj5XiilAsFcAhUt9fw3x/oAGsnBY19I6Kq+zAOR6N3wwx7If1Njo6kcPdIiQ wTuKc3ZEQiyRuyUDWb8dTP8arSl4lbSpxWPPza+YhKMcNUyEwcGkm40d79fG7hhm WwwgcskivtP3TMj93FdXP+eYk+W1Zcbdomp1egRjKS8if8bwlwJHJ6upe+AWrfaC nfRSlIvDIlFat8jX8yxDkbIHdeOhZ3ceB2eCpY14FFORb7kXLuUVwS7GPyIKB5F5 mXdCaX8lCZqSe/rumPAOzQXgg9lvg2VbgHmIj2Umpbs6rU8MeRPNPDN52Qq+nA7K 0Ya/B20VHysmzvxnIYSof+6OFxnb5+B+Fzp4dVPNZwBgnoUP3o8NRDbykN2WqC36 7soSvPdXflHM/yKsiisIuxSbm9uxqboc4gTDUFvvg/k4lg7SYw90w94sFqbl7YMt abJmbx+9caIAnW9BgOcm2/s3tRT1a2vH3wzFJbiC1hje2Uf23MaJiM1p0MD3SZh5 djtZGH4VvQd+QNG4zajU =4Ab6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3955307.s6ZfRZLUKb--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |