On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:39:09PM -0500, Brendan Mannella wrote: > I couldn't even get a quote on the mx80 so I am not sure where they > need to discount too. I would rather have the 240 as it allows for > redundant RE's. But it was out of my budget.
The price of an MX240 chassis is quite a bit "off" from where it should be, IMHO. That is to say, the difference in price between an MX960 and an MX240 chassis is so small that the total cost per unit of bandwidth goes to complete and total hell if you aren't buying fully loaded MX960s. I'm sure there is a reason for the way it is priced, i.e. it is related to Juniper's manufacturing costs, but the end result is that smaller customers who could have benefited from an MX platform have been priced completely out of the market. One of the reasons that the MX80 looks like it is going to be so popular is that it specifically addresses this problem by providing a much cheaper entry level platform, especially if you are able to get by with the fixed config version (4x XFP, 48x 10/100/1000 copper) rather than the MIC version. The list price difference between the above fixed config MX80 and a MX240 base (with non-redundant and non-upgraded fabric and RE) and the same interfaces in a full routing config is something like 3.6x. I expect there will probably be some backwards movement on the level of discounts Juniper will be willing to give on the new products, but it is pretty darn hard to change the overall picture when there is a 360% difference in price. IMHO wait for the MX80, it looks like it is going to be a real winner. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[email protected]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
