[j-nsp] Cisco ASR 9001 vs Juniper MX104

[Mark Tinka]

On 1/Dec/15 15:06, john doe wrote:

> Hey mate,
>
> What was the reason? 
>
> >From what I can gather 9K is pretty much a copy of MX range.

Considering the MX960 shipped before the ASR9000, doubtful.

>
> XR is very JunOS like.

Hmmmh, not quite.

There are still some major cosmetic differences, and a few similarities,
and definitely different fundamental architectural principles.

Both are okay for their platforms, but I wouldn't go as far as saying
they "alike".

>
> Real curious how these boxes do in the wild since looks i'll be doing lots of SP related stuff in the near future.

The MX960 shipped first. The ASR9000 followed.

The MX gained ground quickly (you can thank the Cisco 6500/7600 for
that), and software matured quite well (until the mess that was Junos
10.x).

The ASR9000 took a while to mature. Those that deployed had lots of
faith and patience. Eventually (and particularly after Cisco and Juniper
agreed to both support LDP and BGP as a signaling and auto-discovery
protocol for l2vpn's), the ASR9000 quickly caught up and were adopted by
networks.

As a BNG, the MX struggled for a long time. The ASR9000 was slightly
better at this; although between the two, the ASR1000 is likely to be a
more sensible option if you want a BNG that has "experience".

Overall, they both have their places. Personally, in 2015, I prefer the
MX as an edge router, especially after we got the Policy Map feature
(ingress QoS marking for various protocols) introduced into Junos. What
puts me off the ASR9000 is the long IOS XR upgrade process (which I
could live with if I was asked) and the poor implementation at LAG-based
policing (deal-breaker).

As a peering router, I don't mind either - we deploy MX's, ASR1000's and
ASR9000's in this role, and happy with either of them.

YMMV.

Mark.