Looking at new purchases (but then, there is now the However, the MX80 has nowĬaught up, and is certainly a serious contender if we're Happy with the ASR1000 because at some point, it was moreįeature-ready than the MX80. What this has meant is that for a while now, we've been M120, sort of thing.Īs one wants to spread peering/upstream links acrossĭifferent boxes to enhance redundancy, one can't afford toīe buying bigger boxes for each these links. Gone with smaller, multiple units rather than bigger, single When it comes to peering or upstream boxes, we've always > people who've had ASR1000s and MXs on the plate and > straight-forward 元 1/10 gig aggregation. > many of the same jobs, mainly upgrading to > alot of people are choosing either one of the other for > that will make you choose ASR1000 over MX series, but To take advantage of their cheaper offers. Structures even for the ports you want enabled, if you want The MX80 won't do thisĮfficiently today, and is really best deployed in EthernetĪlso, the MX80 can come with rather complicated licensing Looking to throw in some non-Ethernet SPA's, e.g., serial,Į1, T1, SONET, SDH, e.t.c. But on the other hand, the ASR1000 is great if you're Only a 1-port SPA, and no built-in 10Gbps ports unlike the There is a 10-port Gig-E SPA,īut that is a double-height unit, i.e., it eats up 2x slots.ġ0Gbps port density on the ASR1000 sucks a bit there is
Port Adapter) that offers the most dense Gig-E port capacity The ASR1000 has an 8-port Gig-E card (called a SPA - Shared Get lots of Gig-E ports in there and a couple of 10Gbps
The thing the MX80 has that the ASR1000 is port density. > chassis, it comes with 48 1G interfaces and 4 10G You would do well to look at the MX80 fixed > I have not used the asr1000 but it looks like a capable > So, it very much depends on what you want to do with the boxes. > services (using license enablers) than the MX80 does, and it costs
#Cisco asr 1001 license plate series
> The ASR1000 series is a "services" box. > It well depends on your requirements (not talking about throughput). > well to look at the MX80 fixed chassis, it comes with 48 1G interfaces and > I have not used the asr1000 but it looks like a capable box. > experience of Juniper it will be a different learning curve (one that is, > I have lots of MX80s and they have all been fantastic. Second slot active, you can put in a 2 port 10GbE card which works just Until you go to MX40 (2 of them) or MX80 (all 4). The base MX5 has 4 * 10GbE interfaces which aren't usable
#Cisco asr 1001 license plate upgrade
The MX5/10/40 are the exact same hardware and you can just upgrade The MX5 - with 20Gb of TP and 20Gig interfaces at under 25k, that isĪwesome. The other thing is that the MX80 platform, comes in very cheap options like We're deploying a variety of MX5, MX10's for different projects at the Supposed to be now, but I hear it is delayed).
MX80 seriesĪre also supposed to be supporting Virtual Chassis at some point (was Then the MX80 (MX5/10/40/80) kick ass with their throughput. The Juniper MX80 does not have LNS functionality (and looks like it neverīut if you are looking for a beast of a border router for BGP and so on, If you want low level LNS functionality, then the Cisco is the way to go as They are a swiss-army knife of routers and basically are the The ASR1000 series are like most Ciscos, they can be used for a lot of So, it very much depends on what you want to do with the boxes. Services (using license enablers) than the MX80 does, and it costs It well depends on your requirements (not talking about throughput). You would do well to look at the MX80 fixed chassis, it comes with 48 1G interfaces and 4 10G interfaces. But if you have no experience of Juniper it will be a different learning curve (one that is, IMO, worth the effort). > routers and zero experience with juniper. > to buy one of them but i have little experience dealing with cisco > Does anyone have any experience with these two routers, we're looking > To: Subject: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000 From: jon Heise [mailto: Sent: 19 January 2012 21:37
0 kommentar(er)
