nanog mailing list archives
RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
From: "Michael Ruiz" <mruiz () lstfinancial com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:48:27 -0600
I find this usually has to do with the fact that there is no "backup to
software processing" on a Juniper. Every feature it supports, it does
so
in hardware. If the hardware won't do it, then JUNOS won't do it.
The exception has been the multiservices PIC, which is being obsoleted with the trio chipset.
You are right, though. If you don't need the performance, you can
settle
for a cisco in many cases. Also, the MX Juniper line often has nicer performance than the M series if you do more ethernet than sonet.
Yeah another thing I love about the JUNOS is the rollback command. Whew I can tell you a few times where that has saved my bacon a few times and the commit and check command. :-) -----Original Message----- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates () brightok net] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:41 PM To: Michael Ruiz Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? On 1/13/2011 1:35 PM, Michael Ruiz wrote:
For example a M-series is always going to cost some bucks after you factor the FPC and the PICS that need to be loaded.
I find this usually has to do with the fact that there is no "backup to software processing" on a Juniper. Every feature it supports, it does so in hardware. If the hardware won't do it, then JUNOS won't do it. The exception has been the multiservices PIC, which is being obsoleted with the trio chipset. You are right, though. If you don't need the performance, you can settle for a cisco in many cases. Also, the MX Juniper line often has nicer performance than the M series if you do more ethernet than sonet. Jack
Current thread:
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?, (continued)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Chuck Anderson (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Herro91 (Jan 13)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Brandon Kim (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Tony Varriale (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Jack Bates (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Tony Varriale (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Chuck Anderson (Jan 13)
- Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Michael Ruiz (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Chris Adams (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Greg Whynott (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Jack Bates (Jan 13)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Michael Ruiz (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Jack Bates (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Scott Morris (Jan 13)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Thomas Magill (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Bill Blackford (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Jack Bates (Jan 13)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Thomas Magill (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Chris Adams (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Owen DeLong (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Jack Bates (Jan 13)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Michael Ruiz (Jan 13)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Justin M. Streiner (Jan 13)