[96546] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Neal Rauhauser)
Sun May 13 18:54:11 2007
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 16:48:29 -0400
From: Neal Rauhauser <neal@lists.rauhauser.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <45004206-C7A8-446B-A7EF-2C69CA24B618@icann.org>
X-manske.org-MailScanner-From: neal@lists.rauhauser.net
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
M7i is a very, very attractive lab/spare box, but this company wants
carrier class - dual engine M10i are the minimum.
John Crain wrote:
> You might even consider the m7i they can use the same cards
>
> JC
>
> On May 13, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 13-May-2007, at 15:33, Neal Rauhauser wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know much about Juniper but I'm about to learn with a new
>>> job. If I'm going to take full routes from a couple of upstreams and
>>> have a couple of peers will the M10i (768M max) be enough or is the
>>> M20 (2048M max) a better choice.
>>
>> I think the quick answer based on just that requirement is "an M10i
>> will do fine". I am not aware that Juniper sell a router which will
>> struggle with a default configuration to handle a few views of the
>> full table, but perhaps my rhetorical spectacles are unreasonably
>> rosy right now.
>>
>>> Layout here is such that I'd expect to use a single quad gigabit
>>> port ethernet blade in each of a pair of M10i/M20 to achieve
>>> redundancy.
>>>
>>> Is there a pricing resource for this stuff online some where? I do
>>> *not* want to hear from any sales people over this comment ...
>>
>> Try checking the j-nsp archives at
>> <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/>. Good luck with not
>> hearing from sales people.
>>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>
