juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000
matcraig at nmsu.edu
Tue Jan 24 09:50:37 CST 2012
They are competing in some things. There are differences that will make you choose ASR1000 over MX
series, but alot of people are choosing either one of the other for many of the same jobs, mainly
upgrading to straight-forward L3 1/10 gig aggregation. I know some people who've had ASR1000s and
MXs on the plate and chose the MXs. I've also known some who's chosen the ASR1000s. It just really
depends on what you need.
Actually something as an alternative to both I am researching is the Brocade MLX series. They have
different, more efficient, and refreshing architecture; and phenomenal cost (half the cost of
ASR1000/MX or less). Gonna do a trial shortly to see if it all lives up to the marketing or if its
too good to be true. I also know some peer institutions who have dumped both Cisco and Juniper for
Brocade's Ethernet/IP lines. Not a single bad word so far.
On 1/23/12 8:30 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2012 04:14:35 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
>> MX80 is not competing against ASR1k, and JNPR has no
>> product to compete with ASR1k.
> And this is something I've been telling Juniper for years
> (not that they don't already know). The M7i and M10i have
> really done all they can - but trying to get an Ethernet box
> to do non-Ethernet things, while possible, is simply not
> economically viable for operators (FlexWAN's, SIP's, MX
> FPC's, anyone?).
> They really need to solve this one.
> The MX80 had no competition from Cisco, until the ASR9001
> came out (and it supports 40Gbps line cards when they come
> Juniper are dropping the ball on this one. But hopefully,
> they're busy in the lab building a decent ASR1000
More information about the NANOG