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. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp