Mailing List Archive

Mx204 alternative
Greetings,

I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.

Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
routing tables from two providers?

Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
Min 6-8 10G ports are required
1G support required

Thanks in advance!

Mehmet
--
Mehmet
+1-424-298-1903
RE: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
Nokia 7750 sr-1.





From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mehmet Akcin
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2019 3:03 PM
To: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Mx204 alternative



Greetings,



I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.



Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?



Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.

Min 6-8 10G ports are required

1G support required



Thanks in advance!



Mehmet

--

Mehmet
+1-424-298-1903
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
Thank you! Something within 2U (max) form factor :)

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:23 PM Tony Wicks <tony@wicks.co.nz> wrote:

> Nokia 7750 sr-1.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Mehmet Akcin
> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 August 2019 3:03 PM
> *To:* nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Mx204 alternative
>
>
>
> Greetings,
>
>
>
> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
>
>
>
> Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
> routing tables from two providers?
>
>
>
> Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
>
> Min 6-8 10G ports are required
>
> 1G support required
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
>
> Mehmet
>
> --
>
> Mehmet
> +1-424-298-1903
>
--
Mehmet
+1-424-298-1903
RE: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
It’s a bit more expensive and higher capability (1.2tb vs 400G) than the MX204. But the form factor and capability is very impressive for a little box.



From: Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net>
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2019 3:30 PM
To: Tony Wicks <tony@wicks.co.nz>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Mx204 alternative



Thank you! Something within 2U (max) form factor :)



On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:23 PM Tony Wicks <tony@wicks.co.nz <mailto:tony@wicks.co.nz> > wrote:

Nokia 7750 sr-1.





From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org <mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org> > On Behalf Of Mehmet Akcin
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2019 3:03 PM
To: nanog <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> >
Subject: Mx204 alternative



Greetings,



I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.



Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?



Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.

Min 6-8 10G ports are required

1G support required



Thanks in advance!



Mehmet

--

Mehmet
+1-424-298-1903

--

Mehmet
+1-424-298-1903
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
On 8/7/19 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
>
> Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
> routing tables from two providers?
>
> Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
> Min 6-8 10G ports are required
> 1G support required

Extreme (ex Brocade) SLX9540 will do full tables from a couple providers
in a local edge scenario with their "OptiScale" FIB optimization/route
caching, but the whole FIB won't fit in hardware. Bandwidth is very
generous (up to 48x10G + 6x100G), and prices are reasonable. You
wouldn't need any of the stupid port licenses, just the advanced feature
license, so it should be about 25-40% more than an MX204 based on public
pricing I've seen. That would get you 24x10G + 24x1G (the rest of the
hardware is all there just locked out).

The SLX9650 will supposedly (if marketing and my SEs are to believed) do
4M IPv4 in hardware FIB, less if you want IPv6, too but still full
tables of both with ample room for L2 MACs, next-hops, and MPLS.
Bandwidth is, well, "Extreme" at I think 24x25G + 12x100G (25G breakout
capable, all 25G also capable of 1G/10G). Pricing is supposedly "about
double" a 9540.

Be advised that the control plane SOFTWARE is NOT as mature as JunOS.
It's being built up rapidly, but there's still a lot of stuff missing.
I have not, so far, run into any of the weird glitches that I've seen on
older Foundry/Brocade products, though, so that's good. There's also no
oddball restrictions about port provisioning like the MX204 has.
Control plane HARDWARE is well more than capable with something like
16GB (or maybe 32?) of RAM and a Xeon CPU. There's actually a fully
supported option for a guest VM for local analytics, SDN, etc. in remote
scenarios.

If you just want to push packets, they're nice boxes. If you want "high
touch" service provider features, I think you may find them lacking.
They're worth looking at, though, if only because of the
price/performance ratio.

Arista has some similar boxes with similar caveats in terms of infantile
software.

MX204 is a very nice pizza box router for service providers. I'm not
aware of anything quite like it in terms of having a mature control
plane. I like the JunOS config language better than Cisco-style that
most other folks use.
--
Brandon Martin
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
Thank you! Very useful

Certainly i have concerns about the software as well

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:35 PM Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net>
wrote:

> On 8/7/19 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> > I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
> >
> > Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
> > routing tables from two providers?
> >
> > Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
> > Min 6-8 10G ports are required
> > 1G support required
>
> Extreme (ex Brocade) SLX9540 will do full tables from a couple providers
> in a local edge scenario with their "OptiScale" FIB optimization/route
> caching, but the whole FIB won't fit in hardware. Bandwidth is very
> generous (up to 48x10G + 6x100G), and prices are reasonable. You
> wouldn't need any of the stupid port licenses, just the advanced feature
> license, so it should be about 25-40% more than an MX204 based on public
> pricing I've seen. That would get you 24x10G + 24x1G (the rest of the
> hardware is all there just locked out).
>
> The SLX9650 will supposedly (if marketing and my SEs are to believed) do
> 4M IPv4 in hardware FIB, less if you want IPv6, too but still full
> tables of both with ample room for L2 MACs, next-hops, and MPLS.
> Bandwidth is, well, "Extreme" at I think 24x25G + 12x100G (25G breakout
> capable, all 25G also capable of 1G/10G). Pricing is supposedly "about
> double" a 9540.
>
> Be advised that the control plane SOFTWARE is NOT as mature as JunOS.
> It's being built up rapidly, but there's still a lot of stuff missing.
> I have not, so far, run into any of the weird glitches that I've seen on
> older Foundry/Brocade products, though, so that's good. There's also no
> oddball restrictions about port provisioning like the MX204 has.
> Control plane HARDWARE is well more than capable with something like
> 16GB (or maybe 32?) of RAM and a Xeon CPU. There's actually a fully
> supported option for a guest VM for local analytics, SDN, etc. in remote
> scenarios.
>
> If you just want to push packets, they're nice boxes. If you want "high
> touch" service provider features, I think you may find them lacking.
> They're worth looking at, though, if only because of the
> price/performance ratio.
>
> Arista has some similar boxes with similar caveats in terms of infantile
> software.
>
> MX204 is a very nice pizza box router for service providers. I'm not
> aware of anything quite like it in terms of having a mature control
> plane. I like the JunOS config language better than Cisco-style that
> most other folks use.
> --
> Brandon Martin
>
--
Mehmet
+1-424-298-1903
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
If it's not for an US company, then a Huawei NE-20 could be in order. The
entry model fits 2U.


Rubens




On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:04 AM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
>
> Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
> routing tables from two providers?
>
> Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
> Min 6-8 10G ports are required
> 1G support required
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Mehmet
> --
> Mehmet
> +1-424-298-1903
>
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
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.

Is price your only concern with the MX204? You might not need the full blown -R or -IR version, so the list price would only be ~$45K.

I'm not too familiar with other vendors, so I'll leave that to others.

thanks,
-Randy

----- On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:

> Greetings,

> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.

> Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing
> tables from two providers?

> Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
> Min 6-8 10G ports are required
> 1G support required

> Thanks in advance!

> Mehmet
> --
> Mehmet
> +1-424-298-1903
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
45k? No no, the mx204 with enough license to do BGP is more like 20k - 25k
or less. It is actually quite cheap, so I doubt the OP will find anything
much cheaper without going used or do a software router.

I feel it should be mentioned that a Linux box with 4x10G NIC and some
random switch as port expander also will be able to fulfil the requirements
and for a fraction of any other solution.

Regards

Baldur


tor. 8. aug. 2019 06.47 skrev Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net>:

> 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.
>
> Is price your only concern with the MX204? You might not need the full
> blown -R or -IR version, so the list price would only be ~$45K.
>
> I'm not too familiar with other vendors, so I'll leave that to others.
>
> thanks,
> -Randy
>
> ----- On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
>
> Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
> routing tables from two providers?
>
> Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
> Min 6-8 10G ports are required
> 1G support required
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Mehmet
> --
> Mehmet
> +1-424-298-1903
>
>
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
~$45k is the US list price... typical discount applies :-)

thanks,
-Randy

----- On Aug 8, 2019, at 2:33 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:

> 45k? No no, the mx204 with enough license to do BGP is more like 20k - 25k or
> less. It is actually quite cheap, so I doubt the OP will find anything much
> cheaper without going used or do a software router.

> I feel it should be mentioned that a Linux box with 4x10G NIC and some random
> switch as port expander also will be able to fulfil the requirements and for a
> fraction of any other solution.

> Regards

> Baldur

> tor. 8. aug. 2019 06.47 skrev Randy Carpenter < [ mailto:rcarpen@network1.net |
> rcarpen@network1.net ] >:

>> 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.

>> Is price your only concern with the MX204? You might not need the full blown -R
>> or -IR version, so the list price would only be ~$45K.

>> I'm not too familiar with other vendors, so I'll leave that to others.

>> thanks,
>> -Randy

>> ----- On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin < [ mailto:mehmet@akcin.net |
>> mehmet@akcin.net ] > wrote:

>>> Greetings,

>>> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.

>>> Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing
>>> tables from two providers?

>>> Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
>>> Min 6-8 10G ports are required
>>> 1G support required

>>> Thanks in advance!

>>> Mehmet
>>> --
>>> Mehmet
>>> +1-424-298-1903
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
Hi,
SR1 (without s) is 2u high, bit it doesn't have 1G ports. It doesn't even have "native" 10G ports. Only 40/100G, with 4x10G optics for 10G. For 1G you would need a 7210 in sattelite mode, which is one extra U + $$$.
Otherwise very nice box...

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 05:30, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> Thank you! Something within 2U (max) form factor :)
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:23 PM Tony Wicks <tony@wicks.co.nz> wrote:
> > Nokia 7750 sr-1.____
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
I am not certain on the value of having 1GbE interfaces natively on a $25k
plus router in the year 2019. Pair the router with a nice 1RU 1/10GbE
switch installed directly next to it with full metro Ethernet layer 2
feature set.

Anything that needs a 1GbE inteface, attach it to that switch, give the
switch a single 10GbE port to the router, and create the 1Gbps on the
router as a subinterface.

We have reached the point in 10GbE being so low cost that it should really
be the minimum port size for a lot of things. I recently bought an Intel
chipset two port SFP+ daughtercard for a Dell server (part c63dv for an old
r720) on eBay for $40.



On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 8:04 PM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
>
> Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
> routing tables from two providers?
>
> Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
> Min 6-8 10G ports are required
> 1G support required
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Mehmet
> --
> Mehmet
> +1-424-298-1903
>
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
On 08/08/2019 04:02, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>
> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204. 
>
> Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
> routing tables from two providers?
>
> Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
> Min 6-8 10G ports are required
> 1G support required


No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901
(not 9001) with traditional router bits in it.

A portion of the 10G ports on it are capable of 1/10G.

Regards,

--
Tom
RE: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
Yes, good point, I was under the impression that it would take the 12 port
10/1 mda-e card but on looking closer it appears it only supports the high
capacity mda-e-xp (6x100/40/10 ports or 12x100/40/10 ports) cards. This
means, as you say if you want physical 10G or lower ports then a
7210-sas-sx64 would be needed which is less than ideal.

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian Feurdean
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2019 10:50 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Mx204 alternative

Hi,
SR1 (without s) is 2u high, bit it doesn't have 1G ports. It doesn't even
have "native" 10G ports. Only 40/100G, with 4x10G optics for 10G. For 1G you
would need a 7210 in sattelite mode, which is one extra U + $$$.
Otherwise very nice box...
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
hey,

> This > means, as you say if you want physical 10G or lower ports then a>
7210-sas-sx64 would be needed which is less than ideal.
Or you could talk to your account team, there are some new MDAs coming
for IOM-5 and SR-1 that might suit the 10G/1G requirements without
breakout or satellite.

--
tarko
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
One thought could be any of the virtual ones, vmx, nokia vsr, etc on lannerinc hardware.

Cheep scalable and has all the interface options



Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 2:50 am, Tom Hill <tom@ninjabadger.net> wrote:
>
>> On 08/08/2019 04:02, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>>
>> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
>>
>> Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
>> routing tables from two providers?
>>
>> Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
>> Min 6-8 10G ports are required
>> 1G support required
>
>
> No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901
> (not 9001) with traditional router bits in it.
>
> A portion of the 10G ports on it are capable of 1/10G.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Tom
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
Hello

How about Juniper vMX? 8x 10G is no problem in a 2U server. Two Intel X710
NICs with 4 interfaces on each.

I found this guide:

https://gbe0.com/networking/juniper/vmx/ubuntu-14-04-kvm-host-setup-for-juniper-vmx


Regards

Baldur


On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:04 AM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
>
> Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
> routing tables from two providers?
>
> Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
> Min 6-8 10G ports are required
> 1G support required
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Mehmet
> --
> Mehmet
> +1-424-298-1903
>
RE: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
VMX (and VSR) throughput capacity pricing is excessive once you get over about 20G from what I have seen.



From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 9:16 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Mx204 alternative



Hello



How about Juniper vMX? 8x 10G is no problem in a 2U server. Two Intel X710 NICs with 4 interfaces on each.



I found this guide:



https://gbe0.com/networking/juniper/vmx/ubuntu-14-04-kvm-host-setup-for-juniper-vmx



Regards



Baldur
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 16:51, Tom Hill wrote:
> No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901

Weren't we talking about "decently priced" ?

> (not 9001) with traditional router bits in it.

9001, while approaching EoL, can be a good solution if your needs are limited : 8x10G + 20x1G, you should get it for a good price - refurbished.
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 09:09, Radu-Adrian Feurdean
<nanog@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 16:51, Tom Hill wrote:
> > No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901
>
> Weren't we talking about "decently priced" ?

ASR9901 and MX204 being wildly differently priced is market
inefficiency. It's difficult for me to see, how CSCO could justify the
premium for any volume order. Either sell at market or lose sale.

> > (not 9001) with traditional router bits in it.
>
> 9001, while approaching EoL, can be a good solution if your needs are limited : 8x10G + 20x1G, you should get it for a good price - refurbished.

Also it will never run eXR. I have no information, but I think it's
reasonable to suspect the OS not being sold may receive decreasing
amount of NRE. I wouldn't certainly spend my time writing code for
product I'm not selling.


--
++ytti
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019, at 08:13, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 09:09, Radu-Adrian Feurdean
> <nanog@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 16:51, Tom Hill wrote:
> > > No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901
> >
> > Weren't we talking about "decently priced" ?
>
> ASR9901 and MX204 being wildly differently priced is market
> inefficiency. It's difficult for me to see, how CSCO could justify the
> premium for any volume order. Either sell at market or lose sale.

The 2 boxes not having exactly the same port count and features(9901 can do - or is suppose to be able to do - subscriber stuff - IPoE,PTA,LAC), this explains the difference. Add the fact that Cisco has customers that buy "Cisco and nothing else".

And not everybody buys "enough" in order to get acceptable volume discounts.

> Also it will never run eXR. I have no information, but I think it's
> reasonable to suspect the OS not being sold may receive decreasing
> amount of NRE. I wouldn't certainly spend my time writing code for
> product I'm not selling.

Agreed.
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
I would recommend the SLX9640.  12x 100G and 24x 1G/10G ports. 4 million
routes in hardware without compression.  We've gotten 5.7M in there with
compression.  Price point is super good.  Push them and they will get
very aggressive on price.  VERY aggressive.

Aaron


On 8/7/2019 10:33 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
> On 8/7/19 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
>>
>> Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle
>> full routing tables from two providers?
>>
>> Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
>> Min 6-8 10G ports are required
>> 1G support required
>
> Extreme (ex Brocade) SLX9540 will do full tables from a couple
> providers in a local edge scenario with their "OptiScale" FIB
> optimization/route caching, but the whole FIB won't fit in hardware. 
> Bandwidth is very generous (up to 48x10G + 6x100G), and prices are
> reasonable.  You wouldn't need any of the stupid port licenses, just
> the advanced feature license, so it should be about 25-40% more than
> an MX204 based on public pricing I've seen.  That would get you 24x10G
> + 24x1G (the rest of the hardware is all there just locked out).
>
> The SLX9650 will supposedly (if marketing and my SEs are to believed)
> do 4M IPv4 in hardware FIB, less if you want IPv6, too but still full
> tables of both with ample room for L2 MACs, next-hops, and MPLS.
> Bandwidth is, well, "Extreme" at I think 24x25G + 12x100G (25G
> breakout capable, all 25G also capable of 1G/10G).  Pricing is
> supposedly "about double" a 9540.
>
> Be advised that the control plane SOFTWARE is NOT as mature as JunOS.
> It's being built up rapidly, but there's still a lot of stuff missing.
> I have not, so far, run into any of the weird glitches that I've seen
> on older Foundry/Brocade products, though, so that's good.  There's
> also no oddball restrictions about port provisioning like the MX204
> has. Control plane HARDWARE is well more than capable with something
> like 16GB (or maybe 32?) of RAM and a Xeon CPU.  There's actually a
> fully supported option for a guest VM for local analytics, SDN, etc.
> in remote scenarios.
>
> If you just want to push packets, they're nice boxes.  If you want
> "high touch" service provider features, I think you may find them
> lacking. They're worth looking at, though, if only because of the
> price/performance ratio.
>
> Arista has some similar boxes with similar caveats in terms of
> infantile software.
>
> MX204 is a very nice pizza box router for service providers.  I'm not
> aware of anything quite like it in terms of having a mature control
> plane.  I like the JunOS config language better than Cisco-style that
> most other folks use.

--
================================================================
Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
================================================================
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
I'll inject two of my own questions here...

Assuming one can find a used mx204, what is the official juniper licensing
policy?

It looks like I'm going to be replacing our core cisco in the not
too distant future due to running out of fib entries, and am looking at
options. Am I reading the specs correctly that the mx204 should handle
typical internet routing table growth for the next few years?

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 9:47 PM Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net> 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.
>
> Is price your only concern with the MX204? You might not need the full
> blown -R or -IR version, so the list price would only be ~$45K.
>
> I'm not too familiar with other vendors, so I'll leave that to others.
>
> thanks,
> -Randy
>
> ----- On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
>
> Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
> routing tables from two providers?
>
> Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
> Min 6-8 10G ports are required
> 1G support required
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Mehmet
> --
> Mehmet
> +1-424-298-1903
>
>
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
On 8/9/19 1:23 PM, Aaron wrote:
> We've gotten 5.7M in there with compression.

Out of curiosity, what are you doing that has 5.7M routes in a single
routing area? That's a lot of edge routes, tons of VRFs, or something.

> Push them and they will get very aggressive on price. VERY aggressive.

Yes, yes they will. I've seen some distributor pricing and, while not
officially under NDA, I will not mention it directly. Suffice to say
you should demand at least 40-50% off list from your vendor to start with.

--
Brandon Martin
Re: Mx204 alternative [ In reply to ]
On 8/9/2019 4:19 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
> On 8/9/19 1:23 PM, Aaron wrote:
>> We've gotten 5.7M in there with compression.
>
> Out of curiosity, what are you doing that has 5.7M routes in a single
> routing area?  That's a lot of edge routes, tons of VRFs, or something.

They were generated just for testing.

>
>> Push them and they will get very aggressive on price.  VERY aggressive.
>
> Yes, yes they will.  I've seen some distributor pricing and, while not
> officially under NDA, I will not mention it directly.  Suffice to say
> you should demand at least 40-50% off list from your vendor to start
> with.
>

I don't believe I'm under NDA either but all I'll say is that if you
push, 40-50% isn't even close to what they'll do.

1 2 3 4  View All