jmadrid2 at gmail
Apr 26, 2011, 6:53 AM
Post #4 of 16
I currently use two MLXe-16 and can attest to the fact that you are
not going to get anywhere near 1m routes. More like 500K max. FYI.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Drew Weaver <drew.weaver [at] thenap> wrote:
> On 26/04/2011 13:23, Drew Weaver wrote:
>> Has anyone seen any bake offs, or side by side comparisons between the
>> MLXe-4, ASR1006 or the MX80?
>> I am trying to pick a router for a small regional DC and these seem
>> attractive but I don't know all of the caveats and subtleties.
> MLXe-4: 400G backplane, 1m ipv4 prefixes, far faster than either the
> ASR1006 or the MX80, but fewer features, particularly in terms of hqos
> MX80: 60G backplane, 2m ipv4 prefixes, rich feature set
> ASR1006: 5G output with ESP10, 4m ipv4 prefixes. Rich feature set.
> Really, you need to decide what you need from a router and then choose the
> box which provides what you need. These three boxes are completely
> different systems with different strengths and weaknesses. If you need raw
> muscle, the mlxe4 leaves the other boxes in the dust. If you want
> cartloads of features, you'll probably need either the mx80 or the ASR1k.
> Currently on our edge/border routers we run Sampled Netflow, iACLs, uRPF, BGP IPv4/IPv6 (full feeds, several peers), OSPFv2/v3 and I think those are all of the features we use.
> We just don't want to end up with a platform that isn't upgradable and has a bunch of crippling hardware limitations.
> foundry-nsp mailing list
> foundry-nsp [at] puck
It has to start somewhere, it has to start sometime. What better
place than here? What better time than now?
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck