[148848] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Tue Jan 24 19:46:12 2012
From: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
To: "mtinka@globaltransit.net" <mtinka@globaltransit.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:45:41 +0000
In-Reply-To: <201201250258.19904.mtinka@globaltransit.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> We looked at their CER/CES line back in 2009/2010 when we were scoping
> for kit to deploy our MPLS In The Access topology.
>=20
> That time, the box only did 512,000 entries in the FIB, but clearly the
> newer iron has had an upgrade on the inside :-).
> This is good!
>=20
> Inevitably, we settled for Cisco's ME3600X, after realizing we didn't
> need to carry a full table in the Access (and could still provide IP
> Transit services in the Access easily), and at the time, even though
> the Cisco was much newer, the mid-term feature road map was better.
>=20
> Mark.
That upgrade is for the -RT only, not the standard unit. I suggested they =
provide four ports that would be standard GigE SFP ports that could be enab=
led for 10G SFP+ by license key in addition to the 2x10G expansion module. =
So if you had a unit with a capability of 6x10G and 12xGigE, it would be a =
killer little peering point switch in 1U of rack space.
