man. 10. maj 2021 16.20 skrev <aar...@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
