juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the NANOG