nanog mailing list archives
Re: Mx204 alternative
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:18:02 +0200
On 8/Aug/19 06:46, Randy Carpenter wrote:
If you don't require redundant routing engines, there is nothing from Juniper that will cost less and have the capacity you require. In fact, there really aren't any cheaper MX options at all, other than the kneecapped MX80 and MX104 variants. MX204 is really a nice box. I only wish they had a redundant version.
The MX80 and MX104 have no business being in any modern conversation these days :-). For what you could do with it, the MX204 is pretty neat. Juniper have never really considered the Metro in a serious way, because if they did, they'd have an MX204-1G (if you can call it that). They've lost plenty of ground to Cisco's ASR920 (and older MX3600X) on the back of this. Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: Mx204 alternative, (continued)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Aled Morris via NANOG (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Gavin Henry (Sep 02)
- RE: Mx204 alternative Phil Lavin (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Valdis Klētnieks (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative tim () pelican org (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Brandon Butterworth (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Kenneth McRae via NANOG (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Kenneth McRae via NANOG (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Bjørn Mork (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Saku Ytti (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Baldur Norddahl (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Denys Fedoryshchenko (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Saku Ytti (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Denys Fedoryshchenko (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Saku Ytti (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka (Sep 02)