Pro JUNOS: I would add that JUNOS I think has much better automation features. Also there are some interesting features on the MX that make deploying "appliance-in-the-cloud" setups easier to deploy (BGP capable appliance between MPLS LERs).
I generally think VPLS is easier in JUNOS. Pro Cisco: MPLS/VRF aware "foo." Like NAT, SSL, IPSec/GET, and just a load of other features. Although I'm not sure how much of this applies to the 9k.. Derick Winkworth CCIE #15672 (RS, SP), JNCIE-M #721 http://packetpushers.net/author/dwinkworth/ ________________________________ From: Mark Tinka <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006 On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 03:54:56 PM Phil Bedard wrote: > Yes thanks for mentioning that. > > My opinion would be to use a MX480 like someone else said > just due to the increased slot capacity, over the 9006 > or 240. For me, the extra 2x slots on the MX480 wouldn't be a compelling-enough reason to choose it over the ASR9006. Like someone mentioned earlier, chassis pricing is so negligible that it makes more sense to go for an MX480 over an MX240 like it would to go for an ASR9010 over an ASR9006. In our case, it's mostly come down to how much we want to scale in the space that we (don't have), which is why an MX240 has never made any sense to us, just like the ASR1004. Moroever, both the MX and ASR9000 chassis' are shipping faster line cards that mean you can pack more bandwidth into a single slot by the time you think about scaling across the entire chassis. Having operated both platforms in the same network, while I'll always have both vendors in my network as principle, my reasons to choose one over the other would be: o I'd prefer an ASR9000 over the MX because of the "more intuitive" ingress packet marking on the Cisco. Juniper can now do it on the Trio line cards with firewall filters, but it doesn't support marking of EXP bits. If only Juniper - despite the numerous times I've asked - could implement the ToS Translation Tables feature that they do for the IQ2 and IQ2E PIC's for the M- series routers, on the MX line, it would bring them inline with Cisco on this platform (Juniper's classic egress marking/rewriting has always been awkward, IMHO). o I'd prefer the MX because it implements NG-MVPN, while Cisco are still mucking about, re-enacting the LDP vs. BGP fiasco of old. o I'd prefer the the Cisco if I had to mix the classic and newer line cards in the same chassis, as (at least for a long while), mixing DPC's and MPC's was problematic. Word is that this is no longer an issue - I'm due to test. o I'd prefer the Juniper because Cisco make you pay for ridiculous licenses just to deploy l3vpn's on the ASR9000. You get the point... but: o Either router would be fine for basic IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS services. o Either router would be fine for PE Aggregation scenarios in Metro-E networks. o Either router would be fine if I wanted to add non-Ethernet line cards to it (the MX is now sporting these, even though I'm wary it may not be mature yet). o Either router would be fine if I wanted to run 100Gbps Ethernet ports. Hope this helps. Mark. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
