[c-nsp] Cisco ASR vs Juniper

adamv0025 at netconsultings.com adamv0025 at netconsultings.com
Wed May 24 09:18:24 EDT 2017

> Mark Mason
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 6:29 PM
> Alright crowd...Ready the rifles and prepare for battle...Cisco ASR or
> Cost, operability, chassis lifespan new vs. old, memory requirements, etc.
> many details. Feel free to take the post anywhere you'd like.
> Deployments:
> Pure internet router/edge with single eBGP toward ISP - 10Gb up to ISP and
> 10Gb down to Aggregation Point
> MX10 w/ licensing get me 4x10Gb (but sys cap. At 20Gb?), MX40 vs ASR1001X
> (or ASR1001-HX)
> +pretty vanilla installation
> +not running security at this level
> +just a router doing routing
> +single eBGP so/so on memory requirements single iBGP down to Core/Agg
If it's just pure ipv4 Internet routing (i.e. no need for protecting high
priority packets) you might be ok even with 1st gen Trio from Juniper so
either one would do I guess.  

> Internet Edge Aggregation/multiple iBGP sessions toward edge routers
> MX104 or MX240 (or greater chassis lineup) vs ASR9k
> +HUGE MEMORY requirements
> +Multiple BGP aggregation feeds
> +Installation of best routes from MULTIPLE carriers
Yeah smells like big tables and long FIB download times.
You might want to use BGP PIC to speed things up here and be part of the
solution, but unfortunately Junos doesn't support BGP PIC for pure IPv4. 
MX240+ and ASR9k are modular so the comparison really depends on which
line-cards you're considering for each platform. 
But in general you might want to stay away from cards using first generation
of Trio chipsets and Gen1.5 Trio voodoo. And the same applies to first gen
(Trident) ASR9k LCs.   
XR has so much better BGP implementation than Junos. 


::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry::

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list