[j-nsp] Juniper equivalents for migration from Cisco

[Keegan Holley]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Delian Delchev <delian.delchev at gmail.com>wrote:

> You can not compare directly the products this way. The vendors are not
> copying always from each other the products.
> The solution is always a matter of design.
>

I agree but you have to make some sort of comparison when doing the design.
 You have an existing vendor and design that matches your use case and you
are looking to replace them or insert another.  In short you have to look at
what you have and compare it to whatever your new "idea" is.

>
> Let me tell you what I mean.
>
> Cisco is not having equivalent to Extreme x650 (1RU 24 ports
> 10/100/1Gbps/10Gbps, wirespeed, 512Gbps stacking), what are they suggesting
> instead? Nexus is more expensive, can not stack, limited to 256 vlans. 45xx
> does not have wirespeed 10Gbps, and the price per port is several times
> higher? 65xx/76xx are extremely more expensive, also not wirespeed, the
> power usage is extreme, the 10Gbit/s density - the lowest on the market
> (which is normal for a product that is on the market for 12+ years). So
> what
> you do if you want to go for Cisco (if the decision is vendor centric -
> something that I really don't like)? You don't care how the product looks,
> you care what you want to succeed with it, and then you choose from the
> product list, based on performance, total price, complexity, functionality.
>

agree

>
> So - comparing Cisco to Juniper directly is absolutely not correct. EX4200
> is equivalent more to Cisco 3750 series, but is cheaper (on list price),
> having better stacking (3+ times faster),


They have the X series now  which has 128G stacking like the juniper.

much better L3 capabilities, much
>

depends on whether or not you need them.  Some people just need a switch.


> better TCAM for both L2 and L3 processing (both having more lines and
> having
> wider key), more ram, more cpu, more flash, more hw features, which is
> normal for device that is designed 3 years ago, compared to device that
> have

been designed almost 10 years ago.

Some of this has also been addressed in the 3750-X series but not the TCAM.
 I think this was intentional to keep people from thinking about replacing
the 54XX/45XX with cheaper more modular stacks, but that's just speculation.

 The Juniper equivalent to Cisco 45xx
> series is EX8200, which is larger and more denser product. But from arch,
> design and marketing perspective it is the product positioned in the same
> conditions where 45xx would be.


Disagree.  It's probably closer to the 65XX.  It does have wire speed 10G,
can support a full table, can support mpls switching (no vpns)

You may mistakenly assume that EX8200 is
> equivalent to 65xx, and it is, in size. But against 65xx and 76xx the more
> correct juniper product should be the MX.
>

I disagree at least partially.  You wouldn't replace a 65XX in a closet with
an MX just to plug users into it and run ospf for example.  As you said
earlier I don't think you can compare one vendor to another in all cases.
 It is different in a NSP environment though.

>
> You can not simply replace cisco device with juniper device what so ever.
> At
> the end you want to provide some basic functionality to the network, not
> good looking boxes. Juniper is lacking some L2 features behind Cisco in the
> switches, but is having much better L3 capabilities. So you can not do
> simple replacement, you still have to think what you want to provide as
> functionality.
>

I think your previous statement is correct.  They are just different boxes.
 The overall outcome depends on the design.

>
> Delian
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:47, Martin Barry <marty at supine.com> wrote:
>
> > We're a Cisco shop currently and I've been trying to identify the
> > equivalent
> > Juniper products but am struggling a little.
> >
> > We use 4900m in the core, 1GbE copper and fibre for up-links, 10GbE for
> > inter-switch links. It's mostly a switch but there is some layer 3, BGP
> > routing, VRFs. There doesn't appear to be a good match from Juniper. The
> > EX4500-40F comes closest but doesn't have the same modular flexibility.
> We
> > just don't need 40 ports per chassis from day one. Should I be looking at
> > the MX range instead?
> >
> > We use 4948-10GE for access/TOR. The corresponding Juniper appears to be
> > EX4200-48T with EX-UM-2X4SFP.
> >
> > If I've missed other options or am barking up the wrong tree any pointers
> > gladly appreciated.
> >
> > cheers
> > Marty
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>