[j-nsp] Cisco ASR 9001 vs Juniper MX104

[Mark Tinka]

On 1/Dec/15 15:03, john doe wrote:

>
>
> I think price wise MX is a better deal. ASR fully loaded with cards and licences for various services gets expensive fast.

Depends what cards you are loading in there.

If you're packing an ASR1000 with Ethernet line cards, then you get what
you deserve.

If you need dense Ethernet aggregation, the ASR9000 and MX are better
than the ASR1000.

If you need a mix-and-match, the ASR1000 is better than the ASR9000 or MX.


>  
>
>
> Buddy runs SRX in small SP as a NAT box. Pretty happy with it. Also apparently better multicast performance than ASA.
>
> Had a customer running SRX 650 with full BGP and MPLS on top of FW/VPN.  I don't think ASA can do the same.
>
> I had some tests on high end ASA back in 09. Couldn't do line rate 10Gbps across all packet sizes. We ended up using ASR 1K for it. 
>
> Now with all the NG stuff I'm very skeptical about the future of ASA aka PIX v2. Sure they've sandwiched it with SourceFire, but wasn't it tried before with ASA CX?

I think it has been discussed both on c-nsp and j-nsp - firewalls (can
be, but) aren't routers.

If you want a firewall, you'll trade routing features.

If you want a router, you won't have all the firewall features.

The ASR1000, for me, as a good in-between consolation. The ASA and SRX
are just too "firewally" to be reasonable routers. If you use them as
routers, you get what you deserve.

Mark.