You could possibly look at rolling vMX (if it's even available yet) on x86 hardware. It's licensed by throughput and feature set. If you are doing L3VPN, I think you would need the advanced license. This may fit within your budget.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Tim Raphael <raphael.timo...@gmail.com> wrote: > You’ll be looking at a Juniper MX or a Cisco ASK9K I think. > > The MXs are targeted as being full-features edge routers. An MX5 will take > a full feed just fine and do all the *VPN you want. > If you’re talking about multiple full feeds then you’ll need a MX240 with > one of the higher-power REs for a decent reconvergence time. > > > > On 9 Apr 2015, at 10:42 pm, Daniel Rohan <dro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Tim Raphael <raphael.timo...@gmail.com > <mailto:raphael.timo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > L3VPN hand off is the only thing I can think of from the top of my head. > But then, there would be no need to have a full table unless you had > customers requesting a full table. > > > > > > I have one customer who needs an L3VPN for some shared private routes > along with a full table in inet.0. There are ways of accomplishing this > creatively but I'm looking for devices that can handle these types of > requests that permit us some level of sanity. > >
