RE: juniper and cisco
>From what I understand from people who work with large scale providers, Juniper is stronger in the Backbone. I believe Cisco is probably still the best for overall Enterprise products. Heather Buri -Original Message- From: cslx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 5:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: juniper and cisco it is said that the core technology of juniper is better than cisco now,it that true? _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
>"cslx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, >it is said that the core technology of juniper is better than cisco now,it >that true? If you mean technology for provider-level core routers, Juniper certainly is a strong competitor, and others may enter that space as well. Juniper's products don't necessarily fit the needs of enterprise cores except, perhaps, for very large ones. One of Juniper's advantage is that it didn't need to implement great numbers of legacy and enterprise compatibility features, which tend to bloat IOS. At the network layer, carriers aren't going to run anything except IP. At the same time, enterprises are unlikely to need OC-192 and faster links. In the provider marketplace, there isn't the same pressure for single-vendor, end-to-end solutions that there is in the enterprise market. Indeed, many providers very consciously have at least two vendors for each functional area. This is done for several reasons, including protection from bugs in a specific vendor implementation, the ability to play one supplier against another, protection against product delivery delays, etc. A general comment though: if you meant the "core technology" of products in general, no equipment vendor of any size will have a single technology for all its products. Products are optimized for specific markets, and this is a Good Thing. The idea that there is "one IOS" and Cisco has a seamless solution at every level, built to a Master Plan, is sheer marketing spin. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: juniper and cisco
For our company, Cisco does not yet provide reliable products that scale to OC192 and beyond. Juniper easily handles this for our backbone interfaces. I don't work with it directly myself, but that's what the higher-up engineers have told our group. :> --- "Buri, Heather H" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From what I understand from people who work with > large scale providers, > Juniper is stronger in the Backbone. I believe > Cisco is probably still the > best for overall Enterprise products. > > Heather Buri > > -Original Message- > From: cslx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 5:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: juniper and cisco > > > it is said that the core technology of juniper is > better than cisco now,it > that true? > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] = from The Big Lebowski... The Dude: You sure he won't mind? Bunny: Dieter doesn't care about anything. He's a nihilist. The Dude: Ohhh, that must be exhausting... __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
Check out Cisco's optical VSR technology. /n cslx wrote: > it is said that the core technology of juniper is better than cisco now,it > that true? > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
Juniper v. Cisco Juniper seems to be a serious player in the carrier core, IP-only arena. Companies like Worldcom really like the wirespeed Gigabit/Terabit switching fabric. On the other hand, Cisco has a strong grasp (and market share) in the Enterprise arena. For my $.02 worth, they provide the best products for end-to-end integrations. Not to mention that practically all their products play nice with one another. Although that may not be the case with other vendors: (*cough*, *cough* ie- 6509's and HP Procurves; Firewall -1 and PIX ). Hope this helps. Best Regards, Scott M. Trieste ""cslx"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 97dk96$f5i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:97dk96$f5i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > it is said that the core technology of juniper is better than cisco now,it > that true? > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
How long has this been deployed? >Check out Cisco's optical VSR technology. > >/n > >cslx wrote: > >> it is said that the core technology of juniper is better than cisco now,it > > that true? >> _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: juniper and cisco
Actually, that's not true anymore. Cisco released their OC192 routers about 3-4 weeks ago and it performs and scales better than Juniper's routers. Juniper's equipment doesn't scale well and performance loss is experienced under a full loaded node of interface cards. Cisco's stuff doesn't do this and because of their independent architecture and design, everything runs at a carrier class level whether it has just one card or 8. Juniper was first to come out with the fastest backbone routers, but because Cisco retains the carrier class reliability, performance, and scalability...that's why it took them a bit longer. I guess it's worth the wait. -Original Message- From: Dan West To: Buri, Heather H; 'cslx'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: 2/26/2001 8:06 AM Subject: RE: juniper and cisco For our company, Cisco does not yet provide reliable products that scale to OC192 and beyond. Juniper easily handles this for our backbone interfaces. I don't work with it directly myself, but that's what the higher-up engineers have told our group. :> --- "Buri, Heather H" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From what I understand from people who work with > large scale providers, > Juniper is stronger in the Backbone. I believe > Cisco is probably still the > best for overall Enterprise products. > > Heather Buri > > -Original Message- > From: cslx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 5:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: juniper and cisco > > > it is said that the core technology of juniper is > better than cisco now,it > that true? > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] = from The Big Lebowski... The Dude: You sure he won't mind? Bunny: Dieter doesn't care about anything. He's a nihilist. The Dude: Ohhh, that must be exhausting... __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: juniper and cisco
Wow, 3-4 weeks and I'm behind the times already ;> It doesn't hurt that Cisco can just purchase other companies' products and make them their own. I'm not sure about this case, but I know that the Catalyst switch series was purchased (the whole company?) by Cisco and the same with Aeronet ( the wireless lan device ). --- Roger Sohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, that's not true anymore. Cisco released > their OC192 routers > about 3-4 weeks ago and it performs and scales > better than Juniper's > routers. > > Juniper's equipment doesn't scale well and > performance loss is experienced > under a full loaded node of interface cards. > Cisco's stuff doesn't do this > and because of their independent architecture and > design, everything runs at > a carrier class level whether it has just one card > or 8. > > Juniper was first to come out with the fastest > backbone routers, but because > Cisco retains the carrier class reliability, > performance, and > scalability...that's why it took them a bit longer. > I guess it's worth the > wait. > > -----Original Message- > From: Dan West > To: Buri, Heather H; 'cslx'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Sent: 2/26/2001 8:06 AM > Subject: RE: juniper and cisco > > For our company, Cisco does not yet provide reliable > products that scale to OC192 and beyond. Juniper > easily handles this for our backbone interfaces. I > don't work with it directly myself, but that's what > the higher-up engineers have told our group. :> > > --- "Buri, Heather H" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > From what I understand from people who work with > > large scale providers, > > Juniper is stronger in the Backbone. I believe > > Cisco is probably still the > > best for overall Enterprise products. > > > > Heather Buri > > > > -Original Message- > > From: cslx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 5:56 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: juniper and cisco > > > > > > it is said that the core technology of juniper is > > better than cisco now,it > > that true? > > > > > > _ > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > = > from The Big Lebowski... > > The Dude: You sure he won't mind? > Bunny: Dieter doesn't care about anything. He's a > nihilist. > The Dude: Ohhh, that must be exhausting... > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > = from The Big Lebowski... The Dude: You sure he won't mind? Bunny: Dieter doesn't care about anything. He's a nihilist. The Dude: Ohhh, that must be exhausting... __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: juniper and cisco
Roger, I assume your talking about the 7200 OSR? (announced officially on Feb. 20th) I'll admit that I haven't worked with the 7200 OSR, or with any of Junipers routers for that matter, but what is the basis for your comment that it "performs and scales better than Junipers routers"? Is this from personal experience or have you seen a head-to-head comparison by a trusted 3rd party? Same question goes for the comment about the performance loss. According to Juniper, they're architecture is such that they don't experience loss even at high loads. Again, I haven't worked with Juniper but I know folks who have and they haven't told me about the sort of problem you describe. Are your comments from personal experience or is this "Cisco says..."? -Kent --- Roger Sohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, that's not true anymore. Cisco released > their OC192 routers > about 3-4 weeks ago and it performs and scales > better than Juniper's > routers. > > Juniper's equipment doesn't scale well and > performance loss is experienced > under a full loaded node of interface cards. > Cisco's stuff doesn't do this > and because of their independent architecture and > design, everything runs at > a carrier class level whether it has just one card > or 8. > > Juniper was first to come out with the fastest > backbone routers, but because > Cisco retains the carrier class reliability, > performance, and > scalability...that's why it took them a bit longer. > I guess it's worth the > wait. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
It seems from talking to both Juniper and Cisco sales reps that Cisco's strategy is: bash, bash, bash Juniper... Juniper's strategy is: here are our products and let me show you want it can do... I personally prefer Juniper's approach. Also I recently talked to this guy at a conference (Chuck something...no relation to the other Chucks on the list...I don't think :-). He said that his Cisco GSR's were the cause of his bottlenecks after they added Juniper M40's to their network. This was at OC48 speeds (not OC192) and he said that the GSR's were forwarding at rates closer to OC12. Again, I don't know this gentlemen, but the router topic came up and this is what he said. Another person I talked to had an interesting story. He was in the market for a high end router and called up a Cisco rep (of course) and an Foundry rep. He said that both reps had comparison charts for their products vs Juniper. At that time he had never heard of Juniper. Since both these reps were comparing their products to Juniper, they thought, "hey, we should probably take a look at Juniper, whoever these guys are..." They ended up going with Juniper. I'm sure each router has its goods and bads...In any case, if you're going to drop $500K on *one* router, do your research and demo the product... before you buy. >Again, I haven't worked with Juniper but I know folks who have and >they haven't told me about the sort of problem you describe. > >Are your comments from personal experience or is this "Cisco >says..."? _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: juniper and cisco
I agree with Kent, Unless there has been an official non-biased bake off, its really hard to say which product can out perform the other. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 6:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: juniper and cisco Roger, I assume your talking about the 7200 OSR? (announced officially on Feb. 20th) I'll admit that I haven't worked with the 7200 OSR, or with any of Junipers routers for that matter, but what is the basis for your comment that it "performs and scales better than Junipers routers"? Is this from personal experience or have you seen a head-to-head comparison by a trusted 3rd party? Same question goes for the comment about the performance loss. According to Juniper, they're architecture is such that they don't experience loss even at high loads. Again, I haven't worked with Juniper but I know folks who have and they haven't told me about the sort of problem you describe. Are your comments from personal experience or is this "Cisco says..."? -Kent --- Roger Sohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, that's not true anymore. Cisco released > their OC192 routers > about 3-4 weeks ago and it performs and scales > better than Juniper's > routers. > > Juniper's equipment doesn't scale well and > performance loss is experienced > under a full loaded node of interface cards. > Cisco's stuff doesn't do this > and because of their independent architecture and > design, everything runs at > a carrier class level whether it has just one card > or 8. > > Juniper was first to come out with the fastest > backbone routers, but because > Cisco retains the carrier class reliability, > performance, and > scalability...that's why it took them a bit longer. > I guess it's worth the > wait. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: juniper and cisco
> Let's try for some perspective here. It's highly unlikely, especially in the carrier space, that any one vendor will always have the ideal solution. If they have it at one point, they may not continue to have it -- a competitor may recognize that advantage and build something specifically going after it. Also, there's a problem of being sure you compare apples and apples. I'm in the process of updating an Internet-Draft on single-router BGP convergence time, which will have coauthors from several vendors and comments from even more. Believe me, the vendors' own developers and performance/quality testers are as eager as the customers to have objective tests to be judged against. Not to have such criteria means that they are in a constant battle against competitor salesdroids quoting oversimplified or irrelevant numbers, and pushing inappropriately that "bigger is always better." ***side note on why bigger is not better: cost per gigabit, or cost per interface that can support a given line rate, may be more useful, for example, than an arbitrary forwarding cost. >Actually, that's not true anymore. Cisco released their OC192 routers >about 3-4 weeks ago and it performs and scales better than Juniper's >routers. Working for Nortel, I think I'm reasonably objective about this question. Performs and scales well under what conditions? Offered bandwidth? Filtering and traffic shaping rules. >Juniper's equipment doesn't scale well and performance loss is experienced >under a full loaded node of interface cards. Cisco's stuff doesn't do this >and because of their independent architecture and design, everything runs at >a carrier class level whether it has just one card or 8. What is your definition of "carrier class?" > > >Juniper was first to come out with the fastest backbone routers, but because >Cisco retains the carrier class reliability, performance, and >scalability...that's why it took them a bit longer. I guess it's worth the >wait. > >-----Original Message- >From: Dan West >To: Buri, Heather H; 'cslx'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Sent: 2/26/2001 8:06 AM >Subject: RE: juniper and cisco > >For our company, Cisco does not yet provide reliable >products that scale to OC192 and beyond. Juniper >easily handles this for our backbone interfaces. I >don't work with it directly myself, but that's what >the higher-up engineers have told our group. :> > >--- "Buri, Heather H" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From what I understand from people who work with >> large scale providers, >> Juniper is stronger in the Backbone. I believe >> Cisco is probably still the >> best for overall Enterprise products. >> >> Heather Buri >> >> -Original Message- >> From: cslx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 5:56 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: juniper and cisco >> >> >> it is said that the core technology of juniper is >> better than cisco now,it >> that true? >> >> >> _ >> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> _ >> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >= >from The Big Lebowski... > >The Dude: You sure he won't mind? >Bunny: Dieter doesn't care about anything. He's a nihilist. >The Dude: Ohhh, that must be exhausting... > >__ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. >http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > >_ >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >_ >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:11:15PM -0800, Net Bum wrote: >It seems from talking to both Juniper and Cisco sales reps that > >Cisco's strategy is: > bash, bash, bash Juniper... Yep, same goes for their take on Foundry, Extreme, and on and on. I get chills when I think how similar cisco is to Microsoft... _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
Uh yea, There both very successful. Its very easy to bash the leader, but it is much harder to be one. "anthony kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:11:15PM -0800, Net Bum wrote: > >It seems from talking to both Juniper and Cisco sales reps that > > > >Cisco's strategy is: > > bash, bash, bash Juniper... > > Yep, same goes for their take on Foundry, Extreme, and on and on. > > I get chills when I think how similar cisco is to Microsoft... > > > _ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: juniper and cisco
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Dan West wrote: > Wow, 3-4 weeks and I'm behind the times already ;> > > It doesn't hurt that Cisco can just purchase other > companies' products and make them their own. I'm not > sure about this case, but I know that the Catalyst > switch series was purchased (the whole company?) by > Cisco and the same with Aeronet ( the wireless lan > device ). The Catalyst switches were multiple companies, for example: Catalyst 3000's came from Kalpana Catalyst 2800's came from Grand Junction Catalyst 5000's came from Crescendo Catalyst 3900's came from Osicom etc > > --- Roger Sohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, that's not true anymore. Cisco released > > their OC192 routers > > about 3-4 weeks ago and it performs and scales > > better than Juniper's > > routers. > > > > Juniper's equipment doesn't scale well and > > performance loss is experienced > > under a full loaded node of interface cards. > > Cisco's stuff doesn't do this > > and because of their independent architecture and > > design, everything runs at > > a carrier class level whether it has just one card > > or 8. > > > > Juniper was first to come out with the fastest > > backbone routers, but because > > Cisco retains the carrier class reliability, > > performance, and > > scalability...that's why it took them a bit longer. > > I guess it's worth the > > wait. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dan West > > To: Buri, Heather H; 'cslx'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Sent: 2/26/2001 8:06 AM > > Subject: RE: juniper and cisco > > > > For our company, Cisco does not yet provide reliable > > products that scale to OC192 and beyond. Juniper > > easily handles this for our backbone interfaces. I > > don't work with it directly myself, but that's what > > the higher-up engineers have told our group. :> > > > > --- "Buri, Heather H" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > From what I understand from people who work with > > > large scale providers, > > > Juniper is stronger in the Backbone. I believe > > > Cisco is probably still the > > > best for overall Enterprise products. > > > > > > Heather Buri > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: cslx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 5:56 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: juniper and cisco > > > > > > > > > it is said that the core technology of juniper is > > > better than cisco now,it > > > that true? > > > > > > > > > _ > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _ > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > = > > from The Big Lebowski... > > > > The Dude: You sure he won't mind? > > Bunny: Dieter doesn't care about anything. He's a > > nihilist. > > The Dude: Ohhh, that must be exhausting... > > > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > > > _ > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > = > from The Big Lebowski... > > The Dude: You sure he won't mind? > Bunny: Dieter doesn't care about anything. He's a nihilist. > The Dude: Ohhh, that must be exhausting... > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- I'm buying / selling used CISCO gear!! email me for a quote Brian Feeny,CCDP,CCNP+VAS Scarlett Parria [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 318-222-2638 x 109318-222-2638 x 101 Netjam, LLC http://www.netjam.net 1401 Oden St. Suite 18 Shreveport, LA 71104 Fax 318-221-6612 _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: juniper and cisco
Here are some interesting links http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/corp_022201.html http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/cc/pd/rt/12000/12416/prodlit/itro_ds.htm http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/cc/pd/ifaa/oc192/prodlit/cc19_ds.htm The thing is, Juniper's technology is based upon a central bus architecture where as the new GSR routers have a processor for each interface card (as the Juniper has one central CPU). I've seen many tests as where the Juniper routers experience a lot of packet loss and a decrease in performance and reliability when the node is fully configured with a complete set of cards. Each time a card is removed or added, there is downtime with traffic interruptions with the Juniper router trying to "catch up" with the changes. If you talk with the Engineers at Juniper, they will tell you that scalability is their biggest problem with their M series routers. You can run with a few, but they won't scale and you're not able to run a huge network with them without running into major problems. The GSRs run the same as if they had only one interface card or if they are completely filled with interface cards. Each interface card is managed by its own processor so it all runs independent of each other. Another downfall of the Juniper routers is that an interface card for an M160 Juniper router will not work on another Juniper router. For Cisco equipment (like most other Cisco products as well...), a card that works with one 12416 GSR Router will work on another 12xxx one without any problems. Cisco has already tried to keep the interoperability of equipment and hardwarre, so that is always nice. You can also upgrade the lower end GSRs to the new 12416 hardware also. Juniper's stuff is all individual hardware specific. It's very much true that Juniper owns 30% of the Enterprise market share and that they were the first to come out with the fastest routers, but since Cisco has released their new GSR routers...they aren't the only ones anymore. And plus it's also true that Cisco was late coming into this space, but I think with Cisco's standard of having high quality and control procedures, was definitely worth the wait. I know tons of loyal Cisco powered ISPs were waiting for this breakthrough as well. But I have to admit, Juniper does make some good stuff too (Lots of ex-Cisco employees migrated over to Juniper to work there). But I'm partial to Cisco and their equipment but I just wanted to help point out that Juniper is no longer the only one that makes the fastest routers. =) _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: juniper and cisco
It depends on what you mean by 'better'. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of cslx Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 5:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: juniper and cisco it is said that the core technology of juniper is better than cisco now,it that true? _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
I have resisted the temptation to get involved in this, but since it's already being discussed some, I've got a question: "Net Bum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had a Cisco 2600 series on my side and I asked him what he had on > his side. He said (as if I wouldn't know :-), "A big router, it's a Cisco > 12000 series." Then I asked him, "Do you use any Juniper stuff?" He said, > "Yes, we use them in our core. They are behind the 12000's." This is not the first time I've heard this; major ISPs utilizing Juniper in parts of their core, but always using Cisco at the edge. About 6 months ago, I was down at one of Cisco's offices in Florida (Ft. Lauderdale), for a 2 day BGP seminar. I caught the guy who was giving the seminar out in the hall afterward, and we were talking about a multitude of topics, and Juniper came up. He had mostly good things to say about them, particularly about their speed (He was a relatively new employee at Cisco... He might not have drank the Kool-Aid yet). One of the things he did criticize, however, was some kind of problem Juniper had with their BGP4 implementation, and he specifically mentioned that Juniper was making a dent at the core (understatement perhaps), but that they were having a difficult time at the edge as a result of this BGP problem. I regret, now, not pressing him for more detail, and as I haven't been doing anything BGP related, I haven't really taken the time to research this. Is anyone on the list familiar with a problem with Juniper's BGP implementation when peering with other vendors? Alan _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
Roger (I am assuming the same Roger from Securabyte Group), >I've seen many tests as where the Juniper routers experience a lot of >packet >loss and a decrease in performance and reliability when the node is fully >configured with a complete set of cards. Each time a card is removed or >added, there is downtime with traffic interruptions with the Juniper router >trying to "catch up" with the changes. Do you have a URL to these tests? Or is this again, is this "what Cisco says?" > If you talk with the Engineers at >Juniper, they will tell you that scalability is their biggest problem with >their M series routers. You can run with a few, but they won't scale and >you're not able to run a huge network with them without running into major >problems. That sounds fishyWhy would Juniper Engineers say that their products won't scale? Sounds more like something a competitor would say. >It's very much true that Juniper owns 30% of the Enterprise market share >and You a little behind here. That was the Dell'Oro Group's estimates for third quarter of last year. Their latest estimates say it's 34% of the Core (NOT Enterprise). http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/telecom/1314412.html >I know tons of loyal Cisco >powered ISPs were waiting for this breakthrough as well. Tons? Which ISPs are you refering to? I tend to follow Howard B.'s belief that most ISPs (in the core) use more than one vendor. I talked to an install engineer at uunet two weeks ago when I brought up a T1 for a remote office. I had a Cisco 2600 series on my side and I asked him what he had on his side. He said (as if I wouldn't know :-), "A big router, it's a Cisco 12000 series." Then I asked him, "Do you use any Juniper stuff?" He said, "Yes, we use them in our core. They are behind the 12000's." >But I have to admit, Juniper does make some good stuff too (Lots of >ex-Cisco employees migrated over to Juniper to work there). The most important asset to a technology company is their intellectual assets. If their top employees (guys who wrote the BGP, OSPF, MPLS, ISIS, etc. code) leave, they won't be able to replace them. >But I'm partial to Cisco and their equipment I can understand that. Many people on this list have vested interest in Cisco (both hardware and intellectual). It would be terrible if our Cisco skills were no longer marketablebut I don't think this will ever happen. Cisco still dominates the Enterprise. Knowing how to configure Cisco products will land you a nice paying job. Knowing Juniper products will land you a nicer paying job. Knowing both Cisco and Juniper will land you an even nicer paying job :-) _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
I have heard of similar issues with foundry routers, but it was second hand. -- Kevin - Original Message - From: "W. Alan Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 11:25 AM Subject: Re: juniper and cisco > I have resisted the temptation to get involved in this, but since it's already > being discussed some, I've got a question: > > "Net Bum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I had a Cisco 2600 series on my side and I asked him what he had on > > his side. He said (as if I wouldn't know :-), "A big router, it's a Cisco > > 12000 series." Then I asked him, "Do you use any Juniper stuff?" He said, > > "Yes, we use them in our core. They are behind the 12000's." > > This is not the first time I've heard this; major ISPs utilizing Juniper in > parts of their core, but always using Cisco at the edge. > > About 6 months ago, I was down at one of Cisco's offices in Florida (Ft. > Lauderdale), for a 2 day BGP seminar. I caught the guy who was giving the > seminar out in the hall afterward, and we were talking about a multitude of > topics, and Juniper came up. He had mostly good things to say about them, > particularly about their speed (He was a relatively new employee at Cisco... He > might not have drank the Kool-Aid yet). > > One of the things he did criticize, however, was some kind of problem Juniper > had with their BGP4 implementation, and he specifically mentioned that Juniper > was making a dent at the core (understatement perhaps), but that they were > having a difficult time at the edge as a result of this BGP problem. > > I regret, now, not pressing him for more detail, and as I haven't been doing > anything BGP related, I haven't really taken the time to research this. > > Is anyone on the list familiar with a problem with Juniper's BGP implementation > when peering with other vendors? > > Alan > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
"W. Alan Robertson" wrote: >This is not the first time I've heard this; major ISPs utilizing Juniper in >parts of their core, but always using Cisco at the edge. Perhaps as ISPs expand, they migrate their existing boxes to the edge. Just as their old 7500's moved to the edge when the 12000's came out. Now the 12000's move out to the edge when the Juniper's came out. Just a thought...not sure that they did this. It would seem very wasteful to pitch a 12000...why not reuse it... >topics, and Juniper came up. He had mostly good things to say about them, >particularly about their speed (He was a relatively new employee at >Cisco... He >might not have drank the Kool-Aid yet). must be some powerful stuff :-) _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
I've been reading this thread and have been resisting to reply but am now. This thread comes up every now and then. The bottom line is all vendors have their issues and software problems. No single vendor is perfect. It's like a catchup game in a way. Someone comes out with something first then the competitor comes out with something slightly better. In this case, Juniper m160 can have 8 OC-192 cards and Cisco 120xx can have 9. Cisco beat them by and also has more bandwidth across the backplane. Until someone else comes out with a better product. Cycle repeats... and repeats. I haven't looked at the dimensions of the Cisco 120xxx series closely but you can fit 2 M160s in a rack which gives you 16 OC-192s per rack. I'm not sure if 2 Cisco 120xx's can fit in one rack offhand. Port density per rack is why Juniper is getting customers as well. Personally, I work for a multi-vendor shop and hold stock in both companies and am not bias to any vendor. More comments inline... --- Net Bum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roger (I am assuming the same Roger from Securabyte > Group), > > >I've seen many tests as where the Juniper routers > experience a lot of > >packet > >loss and a decrease in performance and reliability > when the node is fully > >configured with a complete set of cards. This is same for other vendors including the ones discussed in this thread. It all depends on the router model, architecture, etc. Each box has it's limits. Typically, the specs will say you can put x cards in a chassis and typically if you fully load the chassis and push the full bandwidth that each interface can handle then you are exceeding the bandwidth of the backplane. In most situations (non core) customers don't push full loads across all interfaces constantly. Example. Let's say you have a module with 4 sync interfaces on it. Each interface can handle 2meg but the entire module can handle 6meg total. 2*4 = 8meg. So, you can put 3 interfaces at full speed or 2 at 2meg and 2 at 1 meg. > Each time a card is removed or > >added, there is downtime with traffic interruptions > with the Juniper router trying to "catch up" with > the changes. That happens with equipment from every vendor. If you pull a card out, it's going to cause your routing tables to re-converge and will effect connectivity throughout the network for a moment or two depending on the size of the network. The effects vary from product to product and depend on what protocols are running. Also depends on the software... some software gets flaky if you hot swap cards and don't recover pretty which can lead to problems later at unknown times. > Do you have a URL to these tests? Or is this again, > is this "what Cisco > says?" > > > If you talk with the Engineers at > >Juniper, they will tell you that scalability is > their biggest problem with > >their M series routers. You can run with a few, > but they won't scale and > >you're not able to run a huge network with them > without running into major > >problems. > > That sounds fishyWhy would Juniper Engineers say > that their products > won't scale? Sounds more like something a > competitor would say. > > >It's very much true that Juniper owns 30% of the > Enterprise market share >and > > You a little behind here. That was the Dell'Oro > Group's estimates for third quarter of last year. > Their latest estimates say it's 34% of the Core > (NOT Enterprise). > > http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/telecom/1314412.html > > >I know tons of loyal Cisco > >powered ISPs were waiting for this breakthrough as > well. > > Tons? Which ISPs are you refering to? I tend to > follow Howard B.'s belief > that most ISPs (in the core) use more than one > vendor. I talked to an > install engineer at uunet two weeks ago when I > brought up a T1 for a remote > office. I had a Cisco 2600 series on my side and I > asked him what he had on > his side. He said (as if I wouldn't know :-), "A > big router, it's a Cisco > 12000 series." Then I asked him, "Do you use any > Juniper stuff?" He said, > "Yes, we use them in our core. They are behind the > 12000's." > > >But I have to admit, Juniper does make some good > stuff too (Lots of > >ex-Cisco employees migrated over to Juniper to work > there). > The most important asset to a technology company is > their intellectual > assets. If their top employees (guys who wrote the > BGP, OSPF, MPLS, ISIS, > etc. code) leave, they won't be able to replace > them. > > >But I'm partial to Cisco and their equipment > > I can understand that. Many people on this list > have vested interest in > Cisco (both hardware and intellectual). It would be > terrible if our Cisco > skills were no longer marketablebut I don't > think this will ever happen. > Cisco still dominates the Enterprise. Knowing how > to configure Cisco > products will land you a nice paying job. Knowing > Juniper products will > land you a nicer paying job. Knowing both Ci
RE: juniper and cisco
>Here are some interesting links > > >http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/corp_022201.html > >http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/cc/pd/rt/12000/12416/prodlit/itro_ds.htm > >http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/cc/pd/ifaa/oc192/prodlit/cc19_ds.htm > > >The thing is, Juniper's technology is based upon a central bus architecture shared memory, not shared bus. There is a difference. I don't have the URL handy, but Cisco has a paper out by the Stanford University professor who architected the GSR. It does a nice comparison of the three basic architectures, shared bus, shared memory, and crossbar. Shared bus runs out of steam at about 2Gbps, and the 7500 is about the highest end Cisco product that uses it. Junipers are generally shared memory and GSRs are generally crossbar. > >where as the new GSR routers have a processor for each interface card (as >the Juniper has one central CPU). > >I've seen many tests as where the Juniper routers experience a lot of packet >loss and a decrease in performance and reliability when the node is fully >configured with a complete set of cards. Each time a card is removed or >added, there is downtime with traffic interruptions with the Juniper router >trying to "catch up" with the changes. If you talk with the Engineers at >Juniper, they will tell you that scalability is their biggest problem with >their M series routers. You can run with a few, but they won't scale and >you're not able to run a huge network with them without running into major >problems. Historically, Junipers have central problems and Ciscos have distributed problems. "Nobody is prefect." > >The GSRs run the same as if they had only one interface card or if they are >completely filled with interface cards. Each interface card is managed by >its own processor so it all runs independent of each other. True for the forwarding plane, but, in both products, the control/path determination plane is still single processor. Might or might not be a limitation, depending on the situation. > >Another downfall of the Juniper routers is that an interface card for an >M160 Juniper router will not work on another Juniper router. For Cisco >equipment (like most other Cisco products as well...), a card that works >with one 12416 GSR Router will work on another 12xxx one without any >problems. Cisco has already tried to keep the interoperability of equipment >and hardwarre, so that is always nice. You can also upgrade the lower end >GSRs to the new 12416 hardware also. Juniper's stuff is all individual >hardware specific. There's no clean answer here. At some point, maintaining backwards compatibility and "investment protection" means that you have to support a less efficient way of doing things that you can do better with new technology. > >It's very much true that Juniper owns 30% of the Enterprise market share and >that they were the first to come out with the fastest routers, but since >Cisco has released their new GSR routers...they aren't the only ones >anymore. And plus it's also true that Cisco was late coming into this >space, but I think with Cisco's standard of having high quality and control >procedures, was definitely worth the wait. Cisco also has the baggage of complexity and support for a large number of IOS features that are irrelevant to ISP operations. Take them out, and you simplify the code and make it easier to test. But you now are supporting a significantly different code base. JunOS was built only to support ISP operations. The bottom line is that each customer needs to make a case-by-case decision. Hopefully, customers that need products in this performance range have significant clue for making decisions. I'll freely admit that I haven't measured the latest products versus one another, but raw best-case forwarding speed is not the only appropriate selection criterion. There isn't only one. Other criteria include forwarding rates when packet filtering or traffic shaping are in effect. Convergence time is yet another factor -- see my http://draft-berkowitz-bgpcon-00.txt, or, even better, the multi-authored next draft http://draft-berkowitz-bgpcon-01.txt, which should be online sometime next wek.\\el >I know tons of loyal Cisco >powered ISPs were waiting for this breakthrough as well. > >But I have to admit, Juniper does make some good stuff too (Lots of ex-Cisco >employees migrated over to Juniper to work there). But I'm partial to Cisco >and their equipment but I just wanted to help point out that Juniper is no longer the only one that makes the fastest routers. =) _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > > >The thing is, Juniper's technology is based upon a central bus architecture > > shared memory, not shared bus. There is a difference. I don't > have the URL handy, but Cisco has a paper out by the Stanford > University professor who architected the GSR. It does a nice > comparison of the three basic architectures, shared bus, shared > memory, and crossbar. Shared bus runs out of steam at about 2Gbps, > and the 7500 is about the highest end Cisco product that uses it. > Junipers are generally shared memory and GSRs are generally crossbar. And Catalyst layer 3 forwarders (dare I say routers?) use the shared memory design, with some added wrinkles for QoS. (hoping not to get the hair up on the back of Howard's neck re terminology...) > >where as the new GSR routers have a processor for each interface card (as >the Juniper has one central CPU). > Rather than get hung up on how many "processors" and what that means, I prefer to compare them functionally the way Howard has espoused here before. There's a path determination function (software in some kind of processor/CPU) and there's a packet forwarding function. The latter can be done by line cards with their own CPUs, line cards with ASICs, or other hardware-assisted implementations. Now when an interface flaps or the path determination function gains or loses a prefix, what happens and which components are involved? - Marty _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: juniper and cisco
> shared memory, not shared bus. There is a difference. I don't >have the URL handy, but Cisco has a paper out by the Stanford >University professor who architected the GSR. It does a nice >comparison of the three basic architectures, shared bus, shared >memory, and crossbar. Shared bus runs out of steam at about 2Gbps, >and the 7500 is about the highest end Cisco product that uses it. >Junipers are generally shared memory and GSRs are generally crossbar. Howard, i think you are referring to this paper? http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/12000/tech/fasts_wp.pdf regards, /yck _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: juniper and cisco
> > >Is anyone on the list familiar with a problem with Juniper's BGP >implementation >when peering with other vendors? An observation or two. The authors of the BGP-4 specification are Tony Li and Yakov Rekhter. Tony was the principal programmer of the Cisco code, as well as the Juniper code (Dave Katz, in contrast, wrote both Cisco's and Juniper's ISIS). Tony is off to a new startup, Procket, while Yakov left Cisco for Juniper. Personally, I tend to discount reports that people can't write code for one platform that will interoperate with code they themselves wrote on another platform. Standards compatibility, given that the key people here wrote the standards as well, is unlikely to be an issue. Sounds like more FUD. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Microsoft and Cisco (was Re: juniper and cisco)
Someone wrote: > I get chills when I think how similar cisco is to Microsoft... Nah, I disagree - they're worlds apart. First of all, neither one is a monopoly - the DoJ has their head up their ass. Secondly, Cisco's response to bugs is "Whoops, there's a bug in our software - here's the patch," whereas Microsoft's response is, "Bug? I'm sorry, you must be mistaken - it's a *feature*, which you're simply implementing incorrectly." Sure, they both eat up other companies. But while Microsoft eats other companies and then suppresses their products, Cisco integrates them and allows them to flourish on their own. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Microsoft and Cisco (was Re: juniper and cisco)
Give me 2 of whatever he's on! And some rose colored glasses too... Z >Sure, they both eat up other companies. But while Microsoft eats other >companies and then suppresses their products, Cisco integrates them and >allows them to flourish on their own. > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
