[c-nsp] Cisco ASR vs Juniper

[Mark Tees]

>From memory when I last asked that question HCOS/HQOS was still an MX
only thing :(

That was why the ASR920's were so handy for me.


On 12 May 2017 at 18:51, James Bensley <jwbensley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 May 2017 at 22:08, Aaron Gould <aaron1 at gvtc.com> wrote:
>> I also like what I've seen recently in the Juniper ACX5048 (48/72 - 10 gig
>> ports, or (6) 40 gig ports), which replaced lots of my older Cisco ME3600
>> boxes (only two 10 gig ports).
>
> Did you hit any QoS issues with this? The ACX5048 and QFX5100-48S both
> say 8 queues per port, on our MEs we have loads of queues per port, is
> this just a difference in nomenclature between vendors or really just
> 8 queues per port?
>
> Case in point, on an ME with say an Ethernet NNI port we will have an
> S-Tag per end site and multiple C-Tag per VRF/L3 VPN to that end site.
> So the ENNI port will have a simple H-QoS configuration on it. We have
> hundreds of S-Tags on an ENNI port and then on average about 3 C-Tags
> per S-Tag. Each S-Tag is shaped to the site bandwidth and then a
> policy applied to match all the C-Tags which can have to 7 traffic
> classes in it. So say 8 queues per S-tag, we have hundreds of queues
> per port.
>
> We have been looking at ACX to replace ME’s too but am I missing
> something or is the QoS capabilities of the ACX in no way comparable?
> I can't find a Juniper product that can replace the MEs at layer 2
> (48x 1G/10G ports with >10G uplinks and ME-like QoS).
>
> Cheers,
> James.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/



-- 
Regards,

Mark L. Tees