[j-nsp] Cisco ASR 9001 vs Juniper MX104

[Payam Chychi]

Asr1000 line are solid if needed for nat 

-- 
Payam Chychi
Solution Architect 


On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:

> On 30 November 2015 at 15:39, Adam Vitkovsky <Adam.Vitkovsky at gamma.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hey Adam,
> 
> > I think this can be alleviated with BGP provider edge link protection(Cisco BGP PIC Edge)/BGP PIC Edge(Cisco BGP PIC Core).
> > However in Junos this is available only for VRFs.
> > 
> 
> 
> You'll be happy to hear it got into 15.1 for INET \o/
> 
> > That's right Trio's LU is just better, it can cope with any combination of features enabled with only small performance hit compared to A9k's NPU.
> > However if QX chip is used the whole LU performance advantage is jeopardized (but at least the degradation is deterministic).
> > 
> 
> 
> My main woe is not feature parity or inherent capability of
> Trio/EZ/nPower, it's more that once JNPR ships something, it'll work
> on all Trio kit. Cisco is coming up _really_ good troubleshooting
> tooling for ASR9k, but they'll arrive at different pace (or maybe not
> at all) at different engines, which is completely understandable for
> this low-level stuff.
> 
> > Also the basic Junos documentation is incomplete and getting some deep level information is next to impossible.
> 
> ACK. This is not mentioned often enough, Cisco is doing pretty good
> job in documents.
> 
> > And what about ASR903 it's very similar product to MX104.
> 
> Dunno, I'd say it's more similar to ACX1k, both are running BRCM
> Enduro? Looking forward to Waris' webinar.
> 
> -- 
> ++ytti
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 
>