[c-nsp] Brocade Vs Cisco

[Kevin Cullimore]

On 8/14/2011 8:55 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:04:17 AM Scott Granados wrote:
>
>> You know that's interesting, I've been following this
>> thread but I totally agree with you.  I very much like
>> Juniper on the core side and I really like their
>> switches...
> Really? We use Juniper's EX3200/4200 products, and have had
> tons and tons of (software) problems since inception. Truth
> be told, it was Juniper's first foray into the switching
> space, and the whole of Junos 9 which launched the platform
> was basically a waste of time for even the most basic of
> features. In this space, Cisco spoilt us.
A lot of effort and attention was diverted during the Junos 9 days 
towards finalizing the integration of the security product line with the 
core routing & forwarding technologies. Things might have turned out 
differently had they been able to put more distance between the rollouts 
of the switching product line and the SRX series.
>
> The EX3200/4200 have certainly gotten better and easier to
> use with Junos 10, but we've come across strange hardware
> problems that can't be solved by software, it's quite sad.
> In one case, we had to swap out EX4200's with Cisco's new
> ME3600X's (Layer 2 only).
>
> I haven't played with the EX8200 (chassis model) much, but
> you can find both good and bad feedback about them on the
> 'j-nsp' mailing list. In general, they seem to be a little
> better than the 1U models.
That's not accidental.
>
> Moreover, the EX was what finally showed that the single
> Junos advantage Juniper have been pushing really isn't
> feasible. And you know what, this isn't necessarily a bad
> thing.
To a lesser extent, they're encountering challenges similar to the ones 
Cisco faced when trying to integrate/"borg" various purchased product lines.
>> but it's hard
>> to beat devices like the 7200 for
>> circuit aggregation at the edges.
> Here, I have to agree. When it comes to non-Ethernet
> aggregation, the 7200 is great. We even choose it before the
> ASR1000, as it's unlikely a dedicated non-Ethernet NPE-G2
> aggregation box will be running out of steam anytime soon.
>
> But then again, Juniper haven't had a strong competitor in
> this space. Non-Ethernet support on the M7i/M10i is present,
> but the 7200 simply does a better job.
>
> One area where Juniper need to quickly beef up is something
> to compete against the ASR1000. Juniper still don't have a
> box that will do 100Mbps, 1Gbps, 10Gbps and non-Ethernet at
> a reasonable $$ value. This is where the ASR1000 is cleaning
> house. I hear something is in the works, but the market is
> moving.
>
> For the Metro-E Access, Juniper fell short on the MX80,
> IMHO. They had such a huge opportunity there to eat up lots
> of Cisco, Huawei and ALU business. They need a 1U platform
> that is a proper Metro-E Access platform in terms of price,
> port density and features. Something is in the works, I
> hear.
>
>> Another place where I
>> think Cisco wins hands down is on the VPN side.  I
>> really got to dig in to the ASA product line during my
>> last gig and with some help from some really skilled
>> folks on this list I really got pretty good with the
>> devices pretty fast.  I've used te Juniper SRX line for
>> similar functions and the ASA just makes more sense, at
>> least to me.
> Not so heavy on the VPN side of things here. A couple of
> 2811's running IPSec/VPN's makes us happy. But if the market
> is anything to go by, the Netscreen's and SSG's have been
> very good VPN platforms, so I guess Juniper did something
> right there.
Netscreen did something right there . . .

>  From what I've been seeing on the 'j-nsp', the SRX is quite
> formidable but has been plagued by numerous software
> problems. Those seem to be getting cleared up, and I think
> this platform stands to be a serious force in the future.
4 billion dollars and 7 years later, we're reminded of how formidable 
integration challenges can be.
>> I just wish Cisco was wirespeed more than they are.  I
>> don't see providing someone a gig interface but only be
>> able to forward at a 3rd of that rate. Juniper does
>> better in this area...
> You need to consider the platforms and their generation when
> comparing raw forwarding performance.
>
> If you look at the late '90's and early 2000's, Cisco were
> playing catch-up to Juniper for high-end forwarding.
> However, Cisco's ASR1000, ASR9000 and CRS are a good match
> for Juniper's M-, MX- and T-series routers, especially if
> you're looking at the advances both vendors have made in the
> last 3 - 4 years.
>
> That's why it was much easier for us to make a decision on
> which vendor to take as early back as 2005, purely on
> performance; but in 2011, it really isn't that easy to judge
> purely on performance. As I said before, not much technical
> difference for us, today, if we have a Juniper or Cisco in
> the network.
>
> Mark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/