[j-nsp] Cisco 7206 replacement

[Keegan Holley]

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Mark Tinka <mtinka at globaltransit.net>wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 29, 2010 04:37:25 am Keegan Holley
> wrote:
>
> > In all fairness cisco has some similar silliness,
> > although the Juniper version tends to be much more
> > inconvenient and costly.
>
> Agree, but I was referring to the newer generation of
> platforms both vendors are putting out today, as this is
> where we're seeing performance and price equalizing out;
> more or less.
>

I was referring to the feature limitations not really performance.  I agree
that performance and price are equalizing out.  I think both vendors are
releasing similar if not identical features based on competition for the
same markets.

>
> > > This is more of a question, but I always assumed that
> > > the ASR overlapped
> >
> > somewhere between the J and M series.
>
> Right now, IMHO, the ASR1000 is way more advanced than the
> J-series (apples vs. oranges, really),


I'm not sure what you we're referring to here, but I assume you mean the
additional features available in the cisco such as stateful firewall, etc.
 There is a difference there, but most NSP's don't use them.  There is also
a severe performance hit since it's a software platform.

obliterates the M7i/M10i (even with the Enhanced CFEB),


Really?  It seems strange that a software based platform would out perform a
silicon based platform.  Where are did you get your info from?


> and in some cases,
> might offer better value than the M120 or M320 depending on

deployment requirements (don't forget there is now an
> ASR1013, and the centralized forwarding engine is growing
> too).
>

This is interesting as well. I believe the larger slot chassis are hardware
based I'm not sure about the performance gap, but I'm sure the cisco is
cheaper.


>
> Having said that, at this point in the game, the M320/T320
> don't seem like wise investments. Given the cost of the
> FPC's + PIC's + slot count, one really should just be
> looking at the MX-series routers.
>

I suppose it depends on your needs.  Burning two slots in the MX in order to
support TDM PICs isn't very appealing either.