>> Epic fail on Juniper's part to think that networks will >> still go for "too big" boxes for "small box" deployments. >> The ERBU head promised that they were looking at a 1U MX80 >> box that would rival the Cisco and Brocade options in the >> access, but I think they thought coming up with the MX5, >> MX10 and MX40 were far better ideas :-\. > It's really interesting, that you say 2RU is too much for MX80. I never > heard such a claim from a customer. At least, it's never been a serious > problem. Much more often they ask whether it fits into a 60 cm deep rack > and how much power it eats. I think, the lack of this requirement comes > from completely different economics of real estate, access networks > structure and all. In many countries (where telecom markets are > emerging) access network is often an interconnection of places like > this: http://nag.ru/upload/images/20519/1877875733.jpeg In a hell I'd > put there something closely priced to MX5, be it 1 or 2 RU height :) So > people often come up using something extremely cheap in the PoPs (don't > even think "MPLS") and aggregate them in a location, where 1 or 2 RU > doesn't make much difference.
I couldn't agree more. Funnily enough when I saw the EX2200C-12 get released being both fanless and shallow depth the first use case I thought was ME NTU/Small PoP. Front-mounted power would have been nice, but hey, I'll deal. There are enough dot1q-tunnelling knobs built-in* for most applications, and aggregating this back to an MX somewhere would make this a pretty solid design. Port ERPS down to the 22xx code (once Juniper get it sub 50ms) and this would kick ass. I've seen a couple of MX80s sitting in basements where there is little or no air-con, and I can't imagine them being long for this world. *Having to pay more than the price of the switch to activate EFL to use Q-in-Q does dampen the idea somewhat though. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
