juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000

Mon Jan 23 18:32:31 UTC 2012

On Monday, January 23, 2012 11:29:57 PM amaged at gmail.com 
wrote:

> ASR 1000 does not run XR. You probably mean XE.

Indeed, I did, as I clarified in some private responses as 
well. I thought it would be obvious so I decided not to 
publicly correct it :-).

> The high availability features that requires maintaining
> state and stateful switch over never seem to work out of
> the box on early releases and need some time until the
> feature gets mature. I've found this across different
> vendors.

To be fair, I've only ever used SSO on the CRS and ASR1000; 
fairly happy with those jobs. The same on a 6500 was an 
utter fail, but we mostly kit those out with single SUP720's 
anyway, so no point for SSO.

The rest of our Cisco is 7200's, which are just a single 
control plane.

GRES on Juniper works pretty well, provided you understand 
the caveats, e.g., Multicast isn't maintained across 
failovers, e.t.c.

Other kinky HA features like ISSU for this or that protocol 
is too sexy for us. BFD is as exotic as we'll get, plus a 
little bit of IETF Graceful Restart (not NSR here).

> The dual IOS process works best with two Routing
> Engines/ESPs on higher models.

Well, if you have dual RP's, you don't need the dual IOS XE 
software process then :-).

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20120124/c6a882e8/attachment.sig>