juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000

Mark Tinka mtinka at globaltransit.net
Tue Jan 24 10:28:13 CST 2012


On Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:50:37 PM Matt Craig wrote:

> 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.

When it comes to peering or upstream boxes, we've always 
gone with smaller, multiple units rather than bigger, single 
ones, e.g., ASR1002 vs. CRS or MX80 vs. M120, sort of thing. 
As one wants to spread peering/upstream links across 
different boxes to enhance redundancy, one can't afford to 
be buying bigger boxes for each these links.

What this has meant is that for a while now, we've been 
happy with the ASR1000 because at some point, it was more 
feature-ready than the MX80. However, the MX80 has now 
caught up, and is certainly a serious contender if we're 
looking at new purchases (but then, there is now the 
ASR9001, whenever it starts shipping).

However, this only works if our connectivity arrangements 
are Ethernet. If we plan to have both Gig-E and non-Gig-E 
capacity in a router, and we need to be able to push a 
couple of Gbps through it (including one or more 10Gbps 
hook-ups), then the ASR1000 is still a winner. This is where 
the MX80 can't compete; and while the MX80 and ASR1000 are 
somewhat of an apples vs. oranges comparison, there really 
ins't anything coming from Juniper at all in this space. So 
one is forced to compare what comes closest.

> 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.

We reviewd the MLX against the 7600 and M320 many years ago. 
These days it would be the MLX against the ASR9000 and 
MX240/480/960. It didn't have the feature set we needed, but 
that was a while back.

Our national exchange point have been happy with them, using 
VPLS to run the fabric (I think AMS-IX do the same, too). 
But that's a relatively simple deployment.

I know some large carriers using them extensively, but not 
intimately enough to tell you whether they're really happy 
or not.

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/20120125/43d3eed1/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list