nanog mailing list archives
Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20?
From: sthaug () nethelp no
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:52:15 +0200 (CEST)
M7i is a very, very attractive lab/spare box, but this company wants carrier class - dual engine M10i are the minimum.
An M10i will handle a full routing table just fine. Note that as with other hardware based forwarding boxes memory on the RE is just one of several resources you need to verify. These days I would probably recommend the RE-850, which runs just fine in both M7i and M10i, and comes standard with 1.5 GByte memory. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug () nethelp no
Current thread:
- Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? Neal Rauhauser (May 13)
- Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? Joe Abley (May 13)
- Message not available
- Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? Neal Rauhauser (May 13)
- Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? sthaug (May 14)
- Message not available
- Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? Joe Abley (May 13)
- Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? Donald Stahl (May 13)
- Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? Chris L. Morrow (May 13)
- Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? Donald Stahl (May 13)
- Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? Hyunseog Ryu (May 14)
- oversubscribed ports for Juniper are a new feature Neal Rauhauser (May 14)
- Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? Chris L. Morrow (May 13)
- Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? Donald Stahl (May 14)
- Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? Warren Kumari (May 15)
- Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? Daniel Roesen (May 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20? Scott Weeks (May 14)