Since this is a Cisco alias, I can jump in. The problem with you statement
is that the old vendor comparison is obsolete. We're in a ASIC forwarding
world. So what you need to compare are the forwarding ASICs. Each forwarding
ASIC is designed with a specific performance envelope. Just like an fighter
jet, if you try to use the ASIC outside it's performance envelope, you end
of up with unsatisfactory performance.
For example, if you compare the first generation PSA forwarding ASIC (Engine
2) vs the second generation IP2 forwarding ASIC you will find the second
generation ASIC out perform the first generation ASIC. Alternatively, if you
compare "features with out performance impact" the central forwarding ASIC
of the IP2 vs the PFC2 parallel forwarding ASIC of the 7600 you find the
PFC2 out be able to handle more feature depth with out a performance impact
(i.e. 15000 line ACL with out a performance impact). It would be the same if
you compare a Engine 4+ feature comparison vs the PFC2. But then the Engine
4+ is designed to handle several factors about the PFC2's 30Mpps performance
envelop.
You will find this everywhere now. For example, Cisco Toaster ASIC cluster
(PXF is the marketing name) is used is a lot of products. Yet, how it is
designed into the equipment differs. PXF in the Cisco 10000 is optimistic
for the massive aggregation on the edge - so that the same feature can be
done on thousands of lease line connections. The same forwarding ASIC on a
7200 is optimized for a general purpose feature + performance. Comparing the
Cisco 10000 vs the Cisco 7200/PXF - even thought they used the same ASIC is
an apples/oranges comparison.
Bottomline, the old days where you can compare one vendor against another
are over. If you really want to do the due diligence to optimize which
equipment is the best fit for the various functions in your network, then
you need to compare forwarding ASICs. Granted, that is not a trivial task -
especially since Cisco has 8 major forwarding ASIC architectures deployed
(Juniper has one with another coming). Makes the task more difficult.
My recommendation is the put the pressure on your sales people to come up
with the comparisons. For Cisco, that means having them show you all the
forwarding ASIC options so you can make the selection (vs the Cisco guy
pre-selecting the product they will push). For Juniper, then means have them
show you comparisons vs a variety of forwarding ASICs, not just the
Lightreading and "IP2 is better than a 7500" comparison. Puts pressure on
the sales team, but then you have a back door around the sales force with
the cisco-nsp and juniper-nsp aliases (or just pull down the membership of
the aliases and E-mail to Juniper/Cisco people directly - keeping specific
questions confidential).
My $.02,
Barry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jakasemboeng [mailto:jakasemboeng@ekilat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 6:58 PM
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [nsp] opinions wanted: how is Juniper better than Cisco
>
>
> Hello all:
>
> I think everybody here would agree that a Juniper router performs better
> than an equivalent Cisco router. Sure, there might be debate
> about just how
> much better, but I don't think there is any dispute that the
> Juniper router
> performs better to some degree.
>
> I am curious to understand how this is true. Specifically, how much of
> Juniper's advantage is due to superior hardware vs. superior software? Is
> it mostly because of better hardware, or mostly better software, or is the
> hardware/software mix about equal?
>
> Now of course, this is a highly subjective question, and nobody will
> probably ever know for sure. I'm just looking for some opinions. For
> example, on the face of it, it seems that the hardware
> architecture for both
> vendors seems rather similar. Both consist of a completely decoupled
> routing and forwarding engine. One hardware advantage that
> Juniper may have
> is the Internet Processor 2 engine for high-touch services. But of course
> Cisco now offers PRE/PXF/NSE/ISE engine for high-touch services.
>
> Note, I am not interested in such features like ease of manageability or
> ease of configuration. I only want to discuss things that affect
> performance at this time.
>
> Any comments will be appreciated.
>
>
> regards
> js
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:20 EDT