On Sunday, August 14, 2011 07:54:17 AM Ryan Finnesey wrote: > If I have the option to engineer to our requirements I > would use cisco at the edge and Juniper at the core.
If you're now considering current offerings from both vendors, you would actually realize that aside from the most special of cases, it really doesn't matter who is used in the core or edge. In the core, we've used both Juniper and Cisco with pretty much no difference. I'd pick a vendor based on small issues such as rack space and power utilization requirements, rather than price or performance as those are quite evenly matched these days. One area that could still tip the scales for us in the core is 10Gbps port density. Otherwise, no major differences. In the edge, things get interesting. Juniper's MX line is certainly powerful, but is not without its challenges. We've had great successes, and failures. Cisco's ASR9000 is not bad either, and has caught up sufficiently feature-wise but still has a bit of a way to go. We've deployed both of these platforms in this role, and for the most part, are running as expected. In essence, the core isn't such a big problem for us. We would be happy running a CRS, ASR9000, T4000 or MX960. The edge is more interesting, and in some cases, some vendors can be better than others, even though problems on the MX and ASR9000 are all fixable in the future. For us, the biggest issues to always consider in the edge are QoS and Multicast capabilities. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
