nanog mailing list archives
RE: Juniper hardware recommendation
From: <aaron1 () gvtc com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 09:19:58 -0500
I prefer MX204 over the ACX5048. The ACX5048 can’t add L3 interface to an mpls layer 2 type of service. There are other limitations to the ACX5048 that cause me to want to possibly replace them with MX204’s. But in defense of the ACX5048, we have gotten some good mileage (a few years now) of good resi/busi bb over vrf’s and also carrier ethernet for businesses and lots of cell backhaul… so they are good for that. I’ve heard the ACX5448 was even better. I’m looking at the MX240 for the SCB3E MPC10E hefty with 100 gig ports -Aaron
Current thread:
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation, (continued)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Mark Tinka (May 08)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Mann, Jason via NANOG (May 07)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Alain Hebert (May 07)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Mark Tinka (May 08)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Marco Paesani (May 08)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Mark Tinka (May 08)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Baldur Norddahl (May 08)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Mark Tinka (May 08)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Baldur Norddahl (May 08)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Mark Tinka (May 09)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Mark Tinka (May 10)
- RE: Juniper hardware recommendation aaron1 (May 10)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Mark Tinka (May 10)
- RE: Juniper hardware recommendation Adam Thompson (May 14)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Jason Healy (May 16)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Colton Conor (May 16)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Mark Tinka (May 16)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Jon Lewis (May 16)
