[j-nsp] Cisco ASR 9001 vs Juniper MX104

[john doe]

> 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. 




Yup, that's what I wrote )



> 

> 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". 


Yeah, I was just referring to cli experience. commits, rollback, hierarchy within. Prior XR IOS was wall of text, no?


> 

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

 

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". 

 


Hm, I hear good things about Subscriber management on MX for config options and scale.

Some are still running ERX boxes to this day. 





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. 

 


Thanks for taking time to write this up.







 

Mark.