>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
>"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 nec
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]> wr
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
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 t
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.
, 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 do
; 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
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
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 (Ch
: [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 yo
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
>prod
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 Mic
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
nce, 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
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 a
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 no
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'
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,
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 r
"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 ca
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 t
>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 ce
"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.
> 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 r
>
>
>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 cod
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
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.
>
__
28 matches
Mail list logo
