p.mayers at imperial
May 23, 2012, 4:28 AM
Post #7 of 14
On 23/05/12 12:16, Mark Tinka wrote:
Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500
[In reply to]
> On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 01:00:47 PM Phil Mayers wrote:
>> You're probably right, but the N7k is quite close in
>> parity to the 6500, in L3VPN-land. L2VPN (I am told)
>> should similarly be more or less equivalent to sup2T.
>> They're a surprisingly respectable box, and modulo
>> "business unit focus" concerns, it's looking difficult
>> to justify a Sup2T...
> I'm thinking all those other non-MPLS features, e.g., QoS,
> routing, EVC, e.t.c.
My experience has been that the entire box, pretty much all features,
are "on a par" with 6500, including QoS and routing. The only
significant things I can think that are missing are L2VPN, service
modules and non-IP routing.
Of course your original message was ASR versus Nexus, and you're
doubtless correct that the ASR leads in every respect; but the 6500
versus Nexus is, in my opinion, a much closer run thing.
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/