[j-nsp] Juniper box equivalent to GSR

[Jack Parks]

I have found that the Cisco 12410 and the M320 are similar in price. 
M40e is a bit cheaper.  The main cost difference has been in the
maintenance (Cisco has per line card maint.).  With the new SIP/SPA
configuration, the GSRs are becoming more flexable and less expensive,
compared to traditionaly configured GSRs with engine-X cards.

Other notes: IOS is a disadvantage in my opinion. 7206-NPE-G1 will
barely do line rate on one GE interface, let alone all three.

I guess it comes down to personal preference, but in the near term,
IOS-XR is promising, but still has a way to go.  All the features you
want are in JunOS today and there is no need to bother trying to
understand which engine card/IOS version/oversubscription model you
want to deploy with Juniper.  The same electronics and the same JunOS
go in the M7i and the M40e. alot of guess work is eliminated.

Additionally, JunOS, in our testing, has better protocol failover
(convergence) times and stability than IOS.

Get one in the lab and test drive one for yourself.  It will help you
get more comfortable with and alivieate and miss-information
(marketing) you might have with both vendors.

Jack



On 10/19/05, Kim Onnel <karim.adel at gmail.com> wrote:
> We're planning on getting a new Core (P) router, we had a BPX-MGX(cisco)
> network, which ran Cell mode MPLS, we need to migrate to Frame-mode
>
> The BPX was used as shelf feeder from MGX ATM switches which had a router
> acting as PE, now we'll continue using the BPX as aggregator PEs trunks(pure
> ATM switch),
>
> So we initially looked at GSR 12410, in my humble opinion, it has decent
> port density compared to price (around 250K US$) when compared to Juniper
> boxes with similar ports density,
>
> We talked with Juniper folks, they were showing us M40 which was quite
> expensive, still not the same port density, which router in Juniper would be
> equivalent disregarding prices, due to price limitations we were trying to
> do it with M7i, processing wise, it'll do it, but with no room for growth,
> add to that the Multicast module that should be added if you decide to add
> Multicast.
>
> Our GSR as P will only run IGP and MPLS transport, it'll initially have 3
> GigaE ports with NPE-G1, 4 ATM OC3 ports and a bunch of PoS for new PEs
> we'll add later
>
> Has anyone had this experience before, people recommend Engine 3 cards and
> were pointing that IOS is one huge advantages/features to go over Juniper,
> please, i welcome your opinions on both GSR and equivalent Juniper boxes.
>
> Any known problems with GSR or Juniper ?
>
> Thanks
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>