nanog mailing list archives
Re: Juniper hardware recommendation
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 17:46:26 +0200
man. 10. maj 2021 16.20 skrev <aaron1 () gvtc com>:
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.
It is my understanding that acx5448 is much more capable than the older acx5048. It will definitely do both l2vpn and l3vpn on mpls (what we use acx5448 / acx710 for). The main limitation is that it will not do full dfz table and not more exotic stuff like subscriber management. Regards Baldur
Current thread:
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Mark Tinka (May 15)
- Re: Juniper hardware recommendation Saku Ytti (May 15)
