[j-nsp] Juniper vs Arista

[Pavel Lunin]

>
>
>
> > Not sure, but from the first glance it doesn't look like they've
> > gained
> > more than they've lost with the JunosE to JUNOS BNG migration.
>
> I didn't miss JunosE any single day after we finished migration to MX.
> MX platform is not ideal and has it's own quirks but I doubt that ideal
> BNG exists.


The first version of my reply was "...JunosE (yes, it was crap) to JUNOS
BNG migration". I finally removed the note in parentheses for the sake of
politeness :)

Saku got it right. It's not about what I like more - of course JunosE CLI
was a nightmare - it's about getting from something which works for a lot
of people to something which looks perfect in the imperfect world.

Finally the goal of this migration was to have one product instead of two,
which is easier to maintain, simpler to use and, consequently, more
interesting for customers, thus its market share should be higher.

I am not saying that JunosE to JUNOS BNG transition was a fail but I
honestly doubt that they reached the initial goals. It's the same hardware
now, however the BNG feature set is in fact a standalone subsystem in
Junos. I would only say thank you to Juniper if we had a no-BNG version of
JUNOS for MX series. And I really wonder if they won or lost market share
with this migration.

However for ScreenOS to SRX I know for sure that it's a fail. Enterprise
security people need a simple webui, comprehensive IPS signature manager,
online log with filters, cool dashboard and other bullshit to impress
bosses. JUNOS with its commits, full featured routing protocols and all the
stuff we love is technically better from a networker's point of view (not
taking into account all the bugs and missing feathers on the way to the
current state) but it's just a different product, targeting different
customers. So sometimes two software packages are better than one.

--
Cheers,
Pavel