On 30/Nov/15 22:56, Amos Rosenboim wrote:
>> I don't think ASR1K is comparable to MX. >I think the ASR1000 is comparable to the MX104 specifically. Both are platforms that are suited to a mix of Ethernet and non-Ethernet ports in a cost-effective manner. Where the ASR1000 edges our the MX104 is that there are various variants of the chassis, supporting low-, mid- and high-end forwarding capacities, native additional services such as IPSec, NAT, e.t.c. I think price wise MX is a better deal. ASR fully loaded with cards and licences for various services gets expensive fast. >> The Juniper platform we position against ASR1K is the Juniper SRX. >That is not really the ideal comparison, if you ask me. If you want to pit something against the SRX, for better or worse, I'd do the ASA. Mark. Buddy runs SRX in small SP as a NAT box. Pretty happy with it. Also apparently better multicast performance than ASA. Had a customer running SRX 650 with full BGP and MPLS on top of FW/VPN. I don't think ASA can do the same. I had some tests on high end ASA back in 09. Couldn't do line rate 10Gbps across all packet sizes. We ended up using ASR 1K for it. Now with all the NG stuff I'm very skeptical about the future of ASA aka PIX v2. Sure they've sandwiched it with SourceFire, but wasn't it tried before with ASA CX? _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
