So it just doesn't work on SXI3/4a then? thanks, -Drew
-----Original Message----- From: Phil Bedard [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:50 AM To: Drew Weaver Cc: 'Paul Stewart'; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX Other vendors are event driven where a next-hop change in the FIB will notify the RIB/BGP of the change, so convergence is faster. Cisco does similar things if you use the BGP next-hop-tracking feature in later IOS versions. Phil On Jul 29, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Drew Weaver wrote: > I thought the BGP scanner and other generic performance caveats that affected > the 6500s were a universal issue amongst all vendors? > > -Drew > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:58 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX > > Yes, I'd like to throw in that we are migrating to pure MX in our core .. > and moving out of 7600 platform (sup720-3bxl). This is partly price related > although BGP performance (scanner) was the driving force on this decision. > Also, for MPLS the price/features to deploy was much more attractive to us > on the MX series too. > > We have some of the MX up and running now and extremely pleased in > comparison. Juniper isn't perfect nor is Cisco - for our needs the move to > MX for core BGP/MPLS appears to have been a really good choice. > > Paul > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:48 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX > >> Looking for options to our next upgrade from our 7200VXR platform. >> Someone suggested 7600 and the WS-X6148A-GE-TX cards with a >> SUP720-3BXL. We're doing BGP (4-5 full iBGP peers, 13 external peers >> (3 upstream, 10 downstream), all full routes), dot1q trunks, EoMPLS >> with L2VPNs. We will most likely do dot1q trunks to our agg switches >> at our other POPs with MPLS and L2VPNs being started/terminated on >> dot1q trunks. We're also looking to roll out IPv6 services in the next >> few months. >> >> Our options we're looking at are a Juniper M320 w/RE-1600 and SFP PIC >> (PB-4GE-SFP). > > If you're doing Ethernet only you should be looking at the Juniper > MX series (e.g. MX480) instead of M320. Much nicer port pricing. > > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
