Juniper versus Cisco

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.dcom.sys.cisco (More info?)

Jon Johnson wrote:

> I have some aging Cisco routers, and a very complex network. I'm
> wondering if anyone has experience with Juniper routers, and why one
> would pick Juniper versus Cisco?

[probably better suited to comp.dcom.sys.cisco - added to the group]

We're doing the same thing. We also have a very large network.

Cisco pros:
1) support model is well understood. Never have to worry about
whether they can get the parts there or not.
2) IOS is well understood.
3) Has more enterprise/legacy features.

Cisco cons:
1) IOS quality has degraded with each and every version.
2) IPSec is not as robust as it should be, IMO.
3) No support for modular upgrades. It's all or nothing.
4) You can't encrypt multicast traffic w/o using GRE tunnels. So if f
you want to encrypt OSPF & data packets, you *have* to use GRE.
5) Multiple IOS images can be a pain to manage.
6) Control plane is *just* being protected with later IOSes.

Juniper pros:
1) Operational features such as "commit" and "rollback n" can really
make backing out of changes a no brainer.
2) Performance is not really in question.
3) IPSec can be encrypted since the AS/ES PICs are IP addressable.
4) High availability is pretty much built in.
5) Some accounting counters are done on the line cards. Easy to get
stats.
6) Control plane is well protected.
7) You can do modular upgrades to JunOS.


Juniper cons:
1) Support model is still not proven. Can they hit every office that
I have??? Not sure.
2) The J series routers are a new item. Granted, Juniper's mantra of
same JunOS everywhere! is a plus.
3) The J series has a button that will reset the router to a "known
good" configuration. Can be quite useful for remote locations.
4) No support for legacy protocols. May be a deal breaker for some
enterprises.


We looked at 6500/Sup720/VPN-SMs vs M10i/M20i/AS-PICs and they are
about the same price. Performance wise, VPN-SM and AS-PICs pushed
about 480Mbps in either direction. I prefer Juniper's implementation
of AS-PICs over VPN-SM but they had the luxury of starting late in the
game.



--

hsb


"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
**************************ROT13 MY ADDRESS*************************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
********************************************************************

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Jon Johnson wrote:
> I have some aging Cisco routers, and a very complex network. I'm wondering
> if anyone has experience with Juniper routers, and why one would pick
> Juniper versus Cisco?
>
>
We completed the transition from Cisco to Juniper a while back. Juniper
produces clean code. If you are replacing 7200/7300/7500 series routers,
you probably can get away with a M7i/10i. Juniper SE's are some of the
best I have worked with. I bet you will have a good experience.

-mike

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.dcom.sys.cisco (More info?)

Hansang Bae wrote:
> BradReeseCom wrote:
>
> > Hi Hansang,
> >
> > You may wish to view the Miercom Cisco vs. Juniper Core Router
> > Head-to-Head Comparison:
> >
> > http://www.bradreese.com/cisco-jun [...] arison.htm

First paragraph after "Key findings and conclusions," 2nd Sentence:

Juniper declined to actively participate in the testing.

> > as well as the Miercom Cisco vs. Juniper Edge Router Head-to-Head
> > Comparison:
> >
> > http://www.bradreese.com/cisco-jun [...] arison.htm

First paragraph after "Key findings and conclusions," 2nd Sentence:

Juniper declined to actively participate in the testing.

> The problem is that Cisco paid for this as far as I can tell. I
wonder
> if Juniper SEs were on site to tweak? I didn't read it thoroughly
but
> I'm thinking Cisco had an army there to assist.
>
> It's hard to take vendor-paid-for testing too seriously. For
example,
> would they have let Miercom publish it if it showed that Junipers
won?
>
> hsb
>

Good points! But I admire Cisco for their "lets-get-it-on"
competitiveness.

Miercom clearly states that Juniper declined to actively participate in
the testing.

Brad Reese

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.dcom.sys.cisco (More info?)

Hello, BradReeseCom!
You wrote on 7 Feb 2005 03:16:25 -0800:

??>>> You may wish to view the Miercom Cisco vs. Juniper Core Router
??>>> Head-to-Head Comparison:
??>>>
??>>> http://www.bradreese.com/cisco-jun [...] arison.htm

B> First paragraph after "Key findings and conclusions," 2nd Sentence:

B> Juniper declined to actively participate in the testing.

From reading test results done by different companies I got an idea that company
which is not paying for test always "declines to actively participate".

With best regards,
Andrey.

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.dcom.sys.cisco (More info?)

Hi,

I have not read any of the test results or specifications
referred to in this thread.

My understanding of some network equipment testing is that
company A funds a test of company A kit vs company B kit.
They specify the test EXACTLY. The independant testers follow
the script they are paid to follow EXACTLY and get the EXACT
results that company A knew they were going to get. Company B
knows that they are in for a kicking since the test has been
specified for that purpose by clever people and declines to
participate. They fund their own test that they
specify EX............

Test results can be informative however I feel that care is
needed in interpreting them and the tests used should be
examined very carefully.

I have heard rumours of code being altered to change test
results as opposed to being optimised purely for expected
production environments.

I seem to recall that some NIC and switch vendors were rumoured
to reduce the interframe gap on CS/CDMA ethernet so that they
would "win" more often in head-to-head contests where the two
nics were connected simultaneously to the same collision domain and
both were offered trafic to transmit. The less well informed purchaser
could easily be taken in by such treatment.

An (almost obsolete now) example might be that a particular vendor
could be attacked if a competitor could find a 'reasonable'
requirement that 'forced' a configuration that resulted in traffic
being process switched.

Buyer beware.

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.dcom.sys.cisco (More info?)

Excellent feedback from all.

Miercom Competitive Testing:

Miercom offers private competitive head-to-head testing for any vendors
who choose to participate in such an event.

This testing is conducted using our Product Evaluation Policy to ensure
fair and accurate testing.

Miercom will not accept any payment to produce a report that is not
factual, honest and relevant.

http://www.miercom.com/?url=servic [...] mpetitive/

Sincerely,

Brad Reese

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Thanks, all for the feedback. I will stay out of the analyst debate.
"BradReeseCom" <Brad@BradReese.Com> wrote in message
news:1107774984.984771.318450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hansang Bae wrote:
> > BradReeseCom wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Hansang,
> > >
> > > You may wish to view the Miercom Cisco vs. Juniper Core Router
> > > Head-to-Head Comparison:
> > >
> > > http://www.bradreese.com/cisco-jun [...] arison.htm
>
> First paragraph after "Key findings and conclusions," 2nd Sentence:
>
> Juniper declined to actively participate in the testing.
>
> > > as well as the Miercom Cisco vs. Juniper Edge Router Head-to-Head
> > > Comparison:
> > >
> > > http://www.bradreese.com/cisco-jun [...] arison.htm
>
> First paragraph after "Key findings and conclusions," 2nd Sentence:
>
> Juniper declined to actively participate in the testing.
>
> > The problem is that Cisco paid for this as far as I can tell. I
> wonder
> > if Juniper SEs were on site to tweak? I didn't read it thoroughly
> but
> > I'm thinking Cisco had an army there to assist.
> >
> > It's hard to take vendor-paid-for testing too seriously. For
> example,
> > would they have let Miercom publish it if it showed that Junipers
> won?
> >
> > hsb
> >
>
> Good points! But I admire Cisco for their "lets-get-it-on"
> competitiveness.
>
> Miercom clearly states that Juniper declined to actively participate in
> the testing.
>
> Brad Reese
>