[c-nsp] Cisco vs. Juniper

[Mark Tinka]

On Tuesday 03 November 2009 01:29:24 am Richard A 
Steenbergen wrote:

> They're actually coming out with (or may already be
> shipping, I don't follow these boxes that closely) a
> replacement CFEB for M7i/M10i which uses the I-Chip (the
> same fwding hw as M120 and the current generation of MX).
> This should give it a slightly longer shelf life, as it
> will add a bunch of modern features and some additional
> fib capacity that didn't exist in the old hardware. Still
> though, this is a very old box (it came out in 2003, as a
> lower production cost refresh on the M5/M10 which came
> out in 2000). The CFEB won't fix the very limited
> capacity, so it wouldn't be a fair comparison against a
> modern box. MX80 would indeed be a much closer
> comparison, though the feature set is still pretty
> different.

I should give it to Cisco, though - the ASR1000 series is a 
really neat platform because it eats up both Ethernet and 
SONET/SDH links alike.

Even if the data plane in the ASR1000 is centralized in 
nature (much like the M7i/M10i), and with a 20Gbps ESP now, 
I'd be more inclined to go for an ASR1000 series box to talk 
Gig-E on one end, and 10-Gig-E, STM-16/OC-48 or 
STM-64/OC-192 on the other.

Juniper don't really have an answer here. Yes, the MX80 is 
probably as close they may come, but it cannot support 
SONET/SDH in a box that can potentially be Ethernet-dense 
for core or edge applications too, while still be physically 
small and relatively inexpensive. The M40e will talk 
SONET/SDH, but it won't support 10Gbps links. And it's way 
bigger than the ASR1000 series boxes.

Don't even get me started on the M120, or the MX240 with an 
MX-FPC :-).

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20091103/75db6253/attachment.bin>