[148846] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Tue Jan 24 13:24:52 2012
From: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
To: "mtinka@globaltransit.net" <mtinka@globaltransit.net>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:24:28 +0000
In-Reply-To: <201201250028.17005.mtinka@globaltransit.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>=20
> We reviewd the MLX against the 7600 and M320 many years ago.
> These days it would be the MLX against the ASR9000 and MX240/480/960.
> It didn't have the feature set we needed, but that was a while back.
>=20
> Our national exchange point have been happy with them, using VPLS to
> run the fabric (I think AMS-IX do the same, too).
> But that's a relatively simple deployment.
>=20
> I know some large carriers using them extensively, but not intimately
> enough to tell you whether they're really happy or not.
>=20
> Mark.
You might get by these days at a peering point with something smaller if yo=
u are a smaller network and don't need a lot of 10G. Something like a Broc=
ade CER-RT series. A 1U box with 136 Gbps of throughput that will handle 1=
.5 million v4 routes in FIB and 256k v6 routes. Sips power, doesn't take u=
p a lot of space, has up to 48 GigE ports but only 2x10G. If they had a mo=
del with 6x10G, it would be a killer little box.
It is basically a 1U MLX.
