Mailing List Archive: Cisco: NSP

Cisco vs. Juniper

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

zeusdadog at gmail

Nov 2, 2009, 6:55 AM

Post #1 of 20 (403 views)
Permalink

Cisco vs. Juniper

All,

For various reasons, I have never really gotten into researching
Juniper products. It seems time for me to start looking into it but
it seems daunting because their products are as vast as Cisco.
Knowing Cisco products and those little caveats, I am sure Juniper has
the same things with various products that you won't find until you
either start using it or read mailing lists for 3 years.

Anyway, the reason for posting to Cisco-NSP list is, not so much about
asking about Juniper products but those who have looked at both and
decided to go with Cisco, what made you go with Cisco? We are not at
the level to use 7600/NX/CSR yet and more interested in ASA/ISR
equivalent for customer side use.

I know this is kind of general question but it would be helpful.

Thanks!

Jay Nakamura
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Ian.Mackinnon at atosorigin

Nov 2, 2009, 7:14 AM

Post #2 of 20 (398 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

Hi Jay,

In the past I have compared M7i with ASR1k

The major comparison seemed to be that for about the same sort of money
Cisco gave you a box with 4 Gig interfaces present whilst J gave you
one, and adding more was very expensive.

Throughputs would have been about the same, and one thing that bit us on
the Juniper side was you can't hope to use Netflow in a real environment
without an expensive services PIC.

Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces[at]puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces[at]puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jay Nakamura
Sent: 02 November 2009 14:56
To: cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Cisco vs. Juniper

All,

For various reasons, I have never really gotten into researching
Juniper products. It seems time for me to start looking into it but
it seems daunting because their products are as vast as Cisco.
Knowing Cisco products and those little caveats, I am sure Juniper has
the same things with various products that you won't find until you
either start using it or read mailing lists for 3 years.

Anyway, the reason for posting to Cisco-NSP list is, not so much about
asking about Juniper products but those who have looked at both and
decided to go with Cisco, what made you go with Cisco? We are not at
the level to use 7600/NX/CSR yet and more interested in ASA/ISR
equivalent for customer side use.

I know this is kind of general question but it would be helpful.

Thanks!

Jay Nakamura
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

_______________________________________________________

Atos Origin and Atos Consulting are trading names used by the Atos Origin group. The following trading entities are registered in England and Wales: Atos Origin IT Services UK Limited (registered number 01245534) and Atos Consulting Limited (registered number 04312380). The registered office for each is at 4 Triton Square, Regents Place, London, NW1 3HG.The VAT No. for each is: GB232327983

This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee, and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this e-mail in error, you are not authorised to copy, disclose, use or retain it. Please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your systems. As emails may be intercepted, amended or lost, they are not secure. Atos Origin therefore can accept no liability for any errors or their content. Although Atos Origin endeavours to maintain a virus-free network, we do not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and can accept no liability for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. The risks are deemed to be accepted by everyone who communicates with Atos Origin by email.
_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

sthaug at nethelp

Nov 2, 2009, 7:52 AM

Post #3 of 20 (398 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

> In the past I have compared M7i with ASR1k

The M7i is getting a bit long in the tooth, so a better comparison
might be ASR1k vs MX80. One important difference if you need a box
*now* is of course that MX80 has been announced but I haven't seen it
in the price lists yet.

> The major comparison seemed to be that for about the same sort of money
> Cisco gave you a box with 4 Gig interfaces present whilst J gave you
> one, and adding more was very expensive.

Agreed, full capacity GigE ports on the M7i are expensive. However,
the (overbooked) 4 port IQ2 works very well.

> Throughputs would have been about the same, and one thing that bit us on
> the Juniper side was you can't hope to use Netflow in a real environment
> without an expensive services PIC.

Here I'd have to disagree. Sampled netflow works very well without a
services PIC. If you don't do sampling the situation is different.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug[at]nethelp.no
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

sthaug at nethelp

Nov 2, 2009, 8:12 AM

Post #4 of 20 (391 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

> Anyway, the reason for posting to Cisco-NSP list is, not so much about
> asking about Juniper products but those who have looked at both and
> decided to go with Cisco, what made you go with Cisco? We are not at
> the level to use 7600/NX/CSR yet and more interested in ASA/ISR
> equivalent for customer side use.

For the CPE side we've stuck to 800/1800/2800/3800 for the simple
reason that the relevant employees had lots of Cisco experience, and
the Juniper J series didn't have enough interesting features/higher
capacity/lower cost that we had a reason to start using it. We have a
couple in the lab...

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug[at]nethelp.no

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Ian.Mackinnon at atosorigin

Nov 2, 2009, 9:14 AM

Post #5 of 20 (391 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

Not wanting to disagree with the mighty Steinar :-)
If you have any significant amount of traffic you need to be sampling at
over 1/1000 or you will kill the link to main cpu. Juniper and our 3rd
party support company explicitly said "don't do it"

We had a couple of incidents where our traffic went to a full 1G and our
1/100 sampling totally killed the box.

Up until then, I thought if a M7i did anything, it did it at full line
rate, always.

Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: sthaug[at]nethelp.no [mailto:sthaug[at]nethelp.no]
Sent: 02 November 2009 15:53
To: Mackinnon, Ian
Cc: zeusdadog[at]gmail.com; cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco vs. Juniper

> In the past I have compared M7i with ASR1k

The M7i is getting a bit long in the tooth, so a better comparison
might be ASR1k vs MX80. One important difference if you need a box
*now* is of course that MX80 has been announced but I haven't seen it
in the price lists yet.

> The major comparison seemed to be that for about the same sort of
money
> Cisco gave you a box with 4 Gig interfaces present whilst J gave you
> one, and adding more was very expensive.

Agreed, full capacity GigE ports on the M7i are expensive. However,
the (overbooked) 4 port IQ2 works very well.

> Throughputs would have been about the same, and one thing that bit us
on
> the Juniper side was you can't hope to use Netflow in a real
environment
> without an expensive services PIC.

Here I'd have to disagree. Sampled netflow works very well without a
services PIC. If you don't do sampling the situation is different.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug[at]nethelp.no

_______________________________________________________

Atos Origin and Atos Consulting are trading names used by the Atos Origin group. The following trading entities are registered in England and Wales: Atos Origin IT Services UK Limited (registered number 01245534) and Atos Consulting Limited (registered number 04312380). The registered office for each is at 4 Triton Square, Regents Place, London, NW1 3HG.The VAT No. for each is: GB232327983

This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee, and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this e-mail in error, you are not authorised to copy, disclose, use or retain it. Please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your systems. As emails may be intercepted, amended or lost, they are not secure. Atos Origin therefore can accept no liability for any errors or their content. Although Atos Origin endeavours to maintain a virus-free network, we do not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and can accept no liability for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. The risks are deemed to be accepted by everyone who communicates with Atos Origin by email.
_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

ras at e-gerbil

Nov 2, 2009, 9:29 AM

Post #6 of 20 (391 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 04:52:54PM +0100, sthaug[at]nethelp.no wrote:
> > In the past I have compared M7i with ASR1k
>
> The M7i is getting a bit long in the tooth, so a better comparison
> might be ASR1k vs MX80. One important difference if you need a box
> *now* is of course that MX80 has been announced but I haven't seen it
> in the price lists yet.

They're actually coming out with (or may already be shipping, I don't
follow these boxes that closely) a replacement CFEB for M7i/M10i which
uses the I-Chip (the same fwding hw as M120 and the current generation
of MX). This should give it a slightly longer shelf life, as it will add
a bunch of modern features and some additional fib capacity that didn't
exist in the old hardware. Still though, this is a very old box (it came
out in 2003, as a lower production cost refresh on the M5/M10 which came
out in 2000). The CFEB won't fix the very limited capacity, so it
wouldn't be a fair comparison against a modern box. MX80 would indeed be
a much closer comparison, though the feature set is still pretty
different.

> Here I'd have to disagree. Sampled netflow works very well without a
> services PIC. If you don't do sampling the situation is different.

IIRC the default limit for sampled netflow (at least on M7i generation
platforms, I can't speak to MX80 or the like) was 7000pps per FPC. So if
for example you sampled every 1:1024 packets this would be good for
7.1Mpps of analyzed traffic for FPC (i.e. more than the box will ever be
able to forward).

--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras[at]e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

cluestore at gmail

Nov 2, 2009, 9:41 AM

Post #7 of 20 (391 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

Juniper supports sFlow which can run at higher speeds (full line rate
described in their docs) which is what we use.

As far as the Cisco vs Juniper argument, we make use of both vendors on out
network. For CPE, it's almost hard to beat Cisco with feature set and price.
also, as Steiner mentioned, Junos has a little learning curve for someone
thats never used it before and is branded in the Cisco cool-aid. We also use
Cisco 7600/6500 in our core. For edge/internet peering, we use Juniper M
series. IMHO, up until a few years ago, before the ASR line came out, Cisco
didn't have a router in that price range that could forward in hardware, so
the M series for that role was a no brainer.

Clue

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Mackinnon, Ian <
Ian.Mackinnon[at]atosorigin.com> wrote:

> Not wanting to disagree with the mighty Steinar :-)
> If you have any significant amount of traffic you need to be sampling at
> over 1/1000 or you will kill the link to main cpu. Juniper and our 3rd
> party support company explicitly said "don't do it"
>
> We had a couple of incidents where our traffic went to a full 1G and our
> 1/100 sampling totally killed the box.
>
> Up until then, I thought if a M7i did anything, it did it at full line
> rate, always.
>
> Ian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sthaug[at]nethelp.no [mailto:sthaug[at]nethelp.no]
> Sent: 02 November 2009 15:53
> To: Mackinnon, Ian
> Cc: zeusdadog[at]gmail.com; cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco vs. Juniper
>
> > In the past I have compared M7i with ASR1k
>
> The M7i is getting a bit long in the tooth, so a better comparison
> might be ASR1k vs MX80. One important difference if you need a box
> *now* is of course that MX80 has been announced but I haven't seen it
> in the price lists yet.
>
> > The major comparison seemed to be that for about the same sort of
> money
> > Cisco gave you a box with 4 Gig interfaces present whilst J gave you
> > one, and adding more was very expensive.
>
> Agreed, full capacity GigE ports on the M7i are expensive. However,
> the (overbooked) 4 port IQ2 works very well.
>
> > Throughputs would have been about the same, and one thing that bit us
> on
> > the Juniper side was you can't hope to use Netflow in a real
> environment
> > without an expensive services PIC.
>
> Here I'd have to disagree. Sampled netflow works very well without a
> services PIC. If you don't do sampling the situation is different.
>
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug[at]nethelp.no
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> Atos Origin and Atos Consulting are trading names used by the Atos Origin
> group. The following trading entities are registered in England and Wales:
> Atos Origin IT Services UK Limited (registered number 01245534) and Atos
> Consulting Limited (registered number 04312380). The registered office for
> each is at 4 Triton Square, Regents Place, London, NW1 3HG.The VAT No. for
> each is: GB232327983
>
> This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely
> for the addressee, and may contain confidential or privileged information.
> If you receive this e-mail in error, you are not authorised to copy,
> disclose, use or retain it. Please notify the sender immediately and delete
> this email from your systems. As emails may be intercepted, amended or
> lost, they are not secure. Atos Origin therefore can accept no liability
> for any errors or their content. Although Atos Origin endeavours to
> maintain a virus-free network, we do not warrant that this transmission is
> virus-free and can accept no liability for any damages resulting from any
> virus transmitted. The risks are deemed to be accepted by everyone who
> communicates with Atos Origin by email.
> _______________________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

ras at e-gerbil

Nov 2, 2009, 9:43 AM

Post #8 of 20 (391 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:14:30PM +0000, Mackinnon, Ian wrote:
> Not wanting to disagree with the mighty Steinar :-)
> If you have any significant amount of traffic you need to be sampling at
> over 1/1000 or you will kill the link to main cpu. Juniper and our 3rd
> party support company explicitly said "don't do it"
>
> We had a couple of incidents where our traffic went to a full 1G and our
> 1/100 sampling totally killed the box.

It is only a 100Mbps link between the routing engine and CFEB, but I
don't think you'd be filling the port even with 1/100 sampling. You'd
certainly overload the software sampling capacity, and I suppose you
might bump a hard coded rate limit they never expected anyone to bump
(which sounds like the case, if it broke regular forwarding). Don't do
1/100 sampling and you'll be fine. :)

> Up until then, I thought if a M7i did anything, it did it at full line
> rate, always.

Actually it doesn't do line rate forwarding either. The "FPC1" component
(the 4 main PIC slots) does a peak of 3.2Gbps full duplex, before taking
into account jcell overhead (this is a limitation of access to the
packet buffer memory). Under artificial conditions (65 byte packets,
which consume 2 64-byte jcells) you can force performance down to just
under 2.5Gbps. Remember the FPC1 was originally designed for OC48s back
in 1998 when Cisco had nothing that could compete with it. It's a
testiment to the quality of the design that you can still use it for a
couple GE's under non-extreme traffic conditions today (I don't see
anyone still trying to use their 7500s to do the same :P), but obviously
it's not going to compete with modern hardware.

At any rate, this is the wrong list so I'll stop responding with Juniper
information unless you wanna move it over to j-nsp. :)

--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras[at]e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

ras at e-gerbil

Nov 2, 2009, 10:09 AM

Post #9 of 20 (391 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 11:41:18AM -0600, Clue Store wrote:
> Juniper supports sFlow which can run at higher speeds (full line rate
> described in their docs) which is what we use.

Only the EX-series supports sFlow, not the real Juniper boxes. And no
you can't run anything close to 1:1 sampling on it, the limitations are
roughly the same as with NetFlow since you're still talking about
hardware sampling but software processing (and traversing the internal
communications link to the RE with the sampled packets).

--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras[at]e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

pl+list at pmacct

Nov 2, 2009, 11:18 AM

Post #10 of 20 (387 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 11:29:24AM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> > Here I'd have to disagree. Sampled netflow works very well without a
> > services PIC. If you don't do sampling the situation is different.
>
> IIRC the default limit for sampled netflow (at least on M7i generation
> platforms, I can't speak to MX80 or the like) was 7000pps per FPC. So if
> for example you sampled every 1:1024 packets this would be good for
> 7.1Mpps of analyzed traffic for FPC (i.e. more than the box will ever be
> able to forward).

Capacity apart, another good subject for the thread is that without a
services DPC, you are realistically trapped to NetFlow v5, which these
days might or might not be a problem. IPv6, 32-bit ASNs, L2 information
come to the mind ...

At least, this is so far.

Cheers,
Paolo

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

dwcarder at wisc

Nov 2, 2009, 11:45 AM

Post #11 of 20 (386 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

On Nov 2, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Paolo Lucente wrote:
>
> Capacity apart, another good subject for the thread is that without a
> services DPC, you are realistically trapped to NetFlow v5, which these
> days might or might not be a problem. IPv6, 32-bit ASNs, L2
> information
> come to the mind ...

AFAIK, junos does not have a netflow v9 template that can
export both v4 and v6 simultaneously.

However, I thought I saw somewhere that 9.6 has a hack to
get 32-bit ASN's in netflow v5.

Dale
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

pl+list at pmacct

Nov 2, 2009, 4:00 PM

Post #12 of 20 (368 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 01:45:50PM -0600, Dale W. Carder wrote:

> AFAIK, junos does not have a netflow v9 template that can
> export both v4 and v6 simultaneously.

Wouldn't expect IPv4/v6 to be multiplexed on a single template;
each should have its own. ie., on a Cisco:

# sho run | inc flow-export
ip flow-export source Loopback286
ip flow-export version 9
ip flow-export destination x.x.x.x yyyy
ipv6 flow-export source Loopback286
ipv6 flow-export destination x.x.x.x yyyy

# sho ip flow export template
...
Total number of Templates added = 2
Total active Templates = 2
Flow Templates active = 2
Flow Templates added = 2
...

> However, I thought I saw somewhere that 9.6 has a hack to
> get 32-bit ASN's in netflow v5.

The hack to introduce sampling information in NetFlow v5, we
can say a-posteriori it was quite successful. Remains to see
who has interest in pushing the next one ...

Cheers,
Paolo

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

rubensk at gmail

Nov 2, 2009, 7:17 PM

Post #13 of 20 (363 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

> For the CPE side we've stuck to 800/1800/2800/3800 for the simple
> reason that the relevant employees had lots of Cisco experience, and
> the Juniper J series didn't have enough interesting features/higher
> capacity/lower cost that we had a reason to start using it. We have a
> couple in the lab...

Price-wise isn't SRX series a competitor for the ISR series ?

Rubens
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

mtinka at globaltransit

Nov 3, 2009, 4:56 AM

Post #14 of 20 (336 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

On Tuesday 03 November 2009 01:29:24 am Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:

> They're actually coming out with (or may already be
> shipping, I don't follow these boxes that closely) a
> replacement CFEB for M7i/M10i which uses the I-Chip (the
> same fwding hw as M120 and the current generation of MX).
> This should give it a slightly longer shelf life, as it
> will add a bunch of modern features and some additional
> fib capacity that didn't exist in the old hardware. Still
> though, this is a very old box (it came out in 2003, as a
> lower production cost refresh on the M5/M10 which came
> out in 2000). The CFEB won't fix the very limited
> capacity, so it wouldn't be a fair comparison against a
> modern box. MX80 would indeed be a much closer
> comparison, though the feature set is still pretty
> different.

I should give it to Cisco, though - the ASR1000 series is a
really neat platform because it eats up both Ethernet and
SONET/SDH links alike.

Even if the data plane in the ASR1000 is centralized in
nature (much like the M7i/M10i), and with a 20Gbps ESP now,
I'd be more inclined to go for an ASR1000 series box to talk
Gig-E on one end, and 10-Gig-E, STM-16/OC-48 or
STM-64/OC-192 on the other.

Juniper don't really have an answer here. Yes, the MX80 is
probably as close they may come, but it cannot support
SONET/SDH in a box that can potentially be Ethernet-dense
for core or edge applications too, while still be physically
small and relatively inexpensive. The M40e will talk
SONET/SDH, but it won't support 10Gbps links. And it's way
bigger than the ASR1000 series boxes.

Don't even get me started on the M120, or the MX240 with an
MX-FPC :-).

Cheers,

Mark.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.82 KB)

bitkraft at gmail

Nov 3, 2009, 5:10 PM

Post #15 of 20 (324 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

Mark, what's your thoughts on the MX240? I'm curious now since you state
not to get you started. :-)

/bs

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Mark Tinka <mtinka[at]globaltransit.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday 03 November 2009 01:29:24 am Richard A
> Steenbergen wrote:
>
> > They're actually coming out with (or may already be
> > shipping, I don't follow these boxes that closely) a
> > replacement CFEB for M7i/M10i which uses the I-Chip (the
> > same fwding hw as M120 and the current generation of MX).
> > This should give it a slightly longer shelf life, as it
> > will add a bunch of modern features and some additional
> > fib capacity that didn't exist in the old hardware. Still
> > though, this is a very old box (it came out in 2003, as a
> > lower production cost refresh on the M5/M10 which came
> > out in 2000). The CFEB won't fix the very limited
> > capacity, so it wouldn't be a fair comparison against a
> > modern box. MX80 would indeed be a much closer
> > comparison, though the feature set is still pretty
> > different.
>
> I should give it to Cisco, though - the ASR1000 series is a
> really neat platform because it eats up both Ethernet and
> SONET/SDH links alike.
>
> Even if the data plane in the ASR1000 is centralized in
> nature (much like the M7i/M10i), and with a 20Gbps ESP now,
> I'd be more inclined to go for an ASR1000 series box to talk
> Gig-E on one end, and 10-Gig-E, STM-16/OC-48 or
> STM-64/OC-192 on the other.
>
> Juniper don't really have an answer here. Yes, the MX80 is
> probably as close they may come, but it cannot support
> SONET/SDH in a box that can potentially be Ethernet-dense
> for core or edge applications too, while still be physically
> small and relatively inexpensive. The M40e will talk
> SONET/SDH, but it won't support 10Gbps links. And it's way
> bigger than the ASR1000 series boxes.
>
> Don't even get me started on the M120, or the MX240 with an
> MX-FPC :-).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

sthaug at nethelp

Nov 4, 2009, 12:18 AM

Post #16 of 20 (314 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

> Mark, what's your thoughts on the MX240? I'm curious now since you state
> not to get you started. :-)

Not answering for Mark here. In any case, MX240 is a sweet little box,
but the price difference to the MX480 (and MX960) is so small that it
is only interesting if you are *really* pressed for rack space and/or
power. We have a couple of them for precisely that reason.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug[at]nethelp.no
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

mtinka at globaltransit

Nov 4, 2009, 2:37 AM

Post #17 of 20 (310 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 09:10:33 am Brian Spade wrote:

> Mark, what's your thoughts on the MX240? I'm curious now
> since you state not to get you started. :-)

Really... :-)?

Well, the MX240 is probably the smallest of the bunch (not
considering the MX80, as it probably won't be modular enough
to provide SONET/SDH support).

The MX-FPC swallows two whole DPC slots. In an MX240, that's
just a waste of time. You're better of getting an M120 or
M40e (M40e if you don't need STM-64/OC-192).

This makes the MX480 or MX960 more appealing when used with
the MX-FPC. But then, that's not in the same space as the
ASR1000 series anymore.

Again, Cisco are slightly better in the segment, at present.
Juniper might do well to refresh the M7i/M10i. And I've said
this to them, time and time again.

As much as I adore Juniper, and with due respect to the
ingenious design of the M7i/M10i platform, the ASR1000
levels (and perhaps, exceeds) the playing field in this
platform space.

Cheers,

Mark.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.82 KB)

dwinkworth at att

Nov 4, 2009, 5:49 AM

Post #18 of 20 (306 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

#######
The MX-FPC swallows two whole DPC slots. In an MX240, that's
just a waste of time. You're better of getting an M120 or
M40e (M40e if you don't need STM-64/OC-192).

This makes the MX480 or MX960 more appealing when used with
the MX-FPC. But then, that's not in the same space as the
ASR1000 series anymore.
#########

Really? The price difference between a 240 and 480 has
always made me wonder why someone wouldn't just buy the
480. The difference is small.

We'll have to wait and see what the answer is going to
be to the ASR. I suspect it will be the SRX, because
of the integrated services and flow-based QoS.

________________________________
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka[at]globaltransit.net>
To: Brian Spade <bitkraft[at]gmail.com>
Cc: sthaug[at]nethelp.no; cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 4:37:16 AM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco vs. Juniper

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 09:10:33 am Brian Spade wrote:

> Mark, what's your thoughts on the MX240? I'm curious now
> since you state not to get you started. :-)

Really... :-)?

Well, the MX240 is probably the smallest of the bunch (not
considering the MX80, as it probably won't be modular enough
to provide SONET/SDH support).

Again, Cisco are slightly better in the segment, at present.
Juniper might do well to refresh the M7i/M10i. And I've said
this to them, time and time again.

As much as I adore Juniper, and with due respect to the
ingenious design of the M7i/M10i platform, the ASR1000
levels (and perhaps, exceeds) the playing field in this
platform space.

Cheers,

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

ras at e-gerbil

Nov 4, 2009, 9:29 AM

Post #19 of 20 (299 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 05:49:52AM -0800, Derick Winkworth wrote:
> Really? The price difference between a 240 and 480 has
> always made me wonder why someone wouldn't just buy the
> 480. The difference is small.

Funny, I say the same thing about the 960 vs 480. We bought exactly one
480 for a place where we couldn't get anything in the 200-240v range for
power, because 90-120v is supported only on 240/480. For the money I'd
have much rather gotten a 960 and just not powered up the second half.
Actually if you look at it from a components perspective it actually
costs you more to buy the smaller chassis. For example a fully redundant
MX960 comes with 3 SCBs (fabric modules), a fully redundant MX480 comes
with 2. And the price difference between the two is a fraction of the
cost of buying a spare SCB. Hopefully MX80 fixes these chassis cost
issues with its new more integrated design. I think there is probably a
product line opening for an MX120 or MX160 as well. But again, wrong
mailing list. :)

--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras[at]e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

mtinka at globaltransit

Nov 4, 2009, 8:52 PM

Post #20 of 20 (290 views)
Permalink

Re: Cisco vs. Juniper [In reply to]

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 09:49:52 pm Derick Winkworth
wrote:

> Really? The price difference between a 240 and 480 has
> always made me wonder why someone wouldn't just buy the
> 480. The difference is small.

That is is true - the difference in price "of the chassis"
would even have your Juniper account team baffled enough as
to why you'd insist on an MX240 and not an MX480, that
they'll probably just give you the chassis upgrade for free
to shut you up and move the meeting along :-).

But that's not the point - when we consider space
requirements, cost of the MX-FPC, DPC (and now, MPC) cards
for the MX-series, where an ASR1000 would suffice better,
Cisco have a better lead.

> We'll have to wait and see what the answer is going to
> be to the ASR. I suspect it will be the SRX, because
> of the integrated services and flow-based QoS.

Yep, let's wait and see.

Cheers,

Mark.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.82 KB)

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com