cisco or juniper?

ilcram19-2

personal choice or product quality?

which do you prefer?

GT-Rob

I deal with both companies and products at work all the time, and would have to go with Cisco, but I am biased and they do have more money to make cool stuff with.

Also, TAC > JTAC

Megadeth4168

The only direct comparison I have of the 2 is from replacing our Pix 520 with a Juniper SG550. Without a doubt, I like the Juniper better. Since the Juniper is newer, it might be a bit of an unfair comparison though.

tiersten

Cisco for routers and switches. Juniper for the firewall.

ilcram19-2

how about replacing the pix with an ASA or and 2800 isr router?

i notice alot that admins with no cisco experiance prefer more other including juniper, sonicwall or even linksys would this be because of their gui and that cisco cli is a lil hard ?

i dont know much about juniper but i've heard alot from admins that they prefer the becasue they are cheaper and ease to manage now can a juniper do as much as a cisco device on the same category?

RTmarc

I don't know this first hand but I've always heard that the vast majority of the ISPs are using Juniper routers for their core routers. Don't know how true it is though.

Aldur

This sounds like a windows vs apple debate, people will choose one over the other based on bias.

Of course I, as you can see from my certs, prefer Juniper, I've worked with IOS and JUNOS seems to flow better logically. I do have to say that my opinion is biased as well since most of my experience lies with Juniper.

GT-Rob,

aww c'mon man, that hurts my feelings What teams in JTAC have you worked with?

ilcram19-2,

I have also heard that from many admins as well, cheeper, ease of use, more throughput, just all around better.

RTmarc,

Yes many ISP are switching over to Juniper for their core, I know that Qwest, Verizion, Level 3, and Global Crossing have mainly Juniper routers in the core. Google is also loaded with Juniper routers.

networker050184

I don't like to configure Juniper routers, but I have never seen an issue with them performance wise.

Aldur

ilcram19-2 wrote:

now can a juniper do as much as a cisco device on the same category?

I'm not to sure on Cisco specs, but the Juniper TX matrix can do 2.5 terabytes one way, 5 Terabytes throughput total, granted this is multiple T640 routers clustered together. The biggest single router is the T1600 which can do 1.6 terabytes one way for a total of 3.2 terabytes throughput total.

Does anybody have throughput specs for a comparable Cisco router?

tiersten

Aldur wrote:

ilcram19-2 wrote:

now can a juniper do as much as a cisco device on the same category?

I'm not to sure on Cisco specs, but the Juniper TX matrix can do 2.5 terabytes one way, 5 Terabytes throughput total, granted this is multiple T640 routers clustered together. The biggest single router is the T1600 which can do 1.6 terabytes one way for a total of 3.2 terabytes throughput total.

Does anybody have throughput specs for a comparable Cisco router?

Its kinda old but you can look at the router performance PDF from Cisco.

darkerosxx

92tbps

http://cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5763/index.html

tiersten

ilcram19-2 wrote:

how about replacing the pix with an ASA or and 2800 isr router?

The PIX series was replaced by the ASA series. Think of an ISR as a router that also has some firewall features. If you want a proper firewall then buy a standalone box. It'll be more powerful and work better.

ilcram19-2 wrote:

even linksys

Yeah... well... it may have Cisco on the box now but yeah...

Slowhand

I was under the impression that Juniper's strength lies in the service provider market, whereas Cisco's routers and firewalls are stronger in the enterprise environment. (Much like the switch-battles between Cisco and Foundry, where Cisco's got some competition in the service provider environments.) That's not to say that Cisco isn't doing well with service providers and Juniper isn't selling enterprise products, but I've always been in the mindset that going for Cisco certs will give you a broader field to work in, whereas a Juniper certified individual would be targeted towards the arenas where "the bigger toys" are in play, like the ones Aldur mentioned.

As for SonicWall, Checkpoint, and even the Juniper Netscreen SSG 5 and SSG 20 firewalls are generally used for small and mid-sized businesses. Where they compete with the lower-end models of Cisco PIX (and now ASA) firewalls, they can't hope to compete with the higher-end models that the Jolly Green Giant(packet) puts out.

Again, these are generalizations and observations, more than anything else. No absolutes, just the feel for things that I've gotten as I've worked. (And for the record, I do like the rest of the business and enterprise-grade firewalls from Juniper as well.)

Pash

My experience with JTAC & TAC has always been fairly painless.

ScreenOS is a very tidy interface for all Juniper Security products, clustering firewalls and setting complex VPN setups is very painless and Junipers white papers are superb.

Again id say the same for Cisco's devices, HA x2 ASA boxes, very painless to setup, obviously network devices are also very easy to setup, any issues and most of them can be found in white papers.

It really totally depends on your product specifications and budget. Comparisons are too diffucult so I wouldn't bother.

Aldur

darkerosxx wrote:

92tbps

http://cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5763/index.html

The exact wording is:

"Supports multichassis configurations of 1.2 to 92 Tbps with the use of up to 72 line card shelves and eight fabric shelves all operating as a single system."

To me this says the multichassis configurations, similar to the TX matrix, all you end up doing to get these high numbers is add more chassis'. Any single router specs?

GT-Rob

haha well to be fair, I rarely deal with JTAC, just because we have about 1:100 juniper to cisco devices, and its usually a different team that deals with it.


I would say that Juniper is, and has been, superior to Cisco on the security market. But for small to enterprise networks, Cisco has the edge. Again, I am 100% biased lol

darkerosxx

Aldur wrote:

darkerosxx wrote:

92tbps

http://cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5763/index.html

The exact wording is:

"Supports multichassis configurations of 1.2 to 92 Tbps with the use of up to 72 line card shelves and eight fabric shelves all operating as a single system."

To me this says the multichassis configurations, similar to the TX matrix, all you end up doing to get these high numbers is add more chassis'. Any single router specs?

That's crazy, after looking more into the Cisco CRS-1, they hold the Guinness World Record for the world's fastest router. I'm also reading that the CRS-1's single rack solution is 1.2 Tbps, so I'd think that's their fastest single router.

I'm bored so I looked and the 7600 is their second fastest router at 720Gbps.

Aldur

darkerosxx wrote:

That's crazy, after looking more into the Cisco CRS-1, they hold the Guinness World Record for the world's fastest router. I'm also reading that the CRS-1's single rack solution is 1.2 Tbps, so I'd think that's their fastest single router.

I'm bored so I looked and the 7600 is their second fastest router at 720Gbps.

Impressive numbers indeed, and they are very similar to Junipers numbers for single chassis'. Do you know those are 1 way or 2 way numbers? If they are one way numbers then they are very similar to Juniper's high end stuff, 1.6 Tbps one way for the T1600, and 640Gbps one way for the T640.

GT-Rob wrote:

haha well to be fair, I rarely deal with JTAC, just because we have about 1:100 juniper to cisco devices, and its usually a different team that deals with it.


I would say that Juniper is, and has been, superior to Cisco on the security market. But for small to enterprise networks, Cisco has the edge. Again, I am 100% biased lol

I would agree with you that Cisco has an edge in the enterprise networks, Juniper is just breaking into the enterprise market which Cisco has been doing for decades.

GT-Rob

The Nexus 7000 runs at 15tbs.

Aldur

GT-Rob wrote:

The Nexus 7000 runs at 15tbs.

On Cisco's website I found

"Up to 8 Tbps total system bandwidth at initial release. Future releases will be scalable to more than 15 Tbps of bandwidth."

That is extremely impressive numbers for sure, I wonder how much this bad boy runs.

GT-Rob

Probably a lot lol. You can buy them now, but I have yet to come across a company that has yet. Most of the networks I work with are designed around 6500s and they do the job on the core/data center level. Although I have seen companies use 6509s all the way down to the user access level, just because of the port density and flexibility they offer.

Aldur

Qwest uses the 6509 alot on their edge, I've been working with them on a job, and its Juniper in the core, cisco 6509's on the edge. I've been thinking about studying for the CCNA for that reason

dynamik

Just FYI, Qwest is affectionately known as Qworst around here.

darkerosxx

Just found out we replaced some 7609's with something. I'm betting it's juniper and wanna find out what it is.

Aldur

dynamik wrote:

Just FYI, Qwest is affectionately known as Qworst around here.

haha, Qworst, wonder why ppl have a bad taste in their mouth about qwest in that area.

dynamik

Their service sucks. They're always having problems.

Good for you though; you'll stay busy

snadam

dynamik wrote:

Their service sucks. They're always having problems.

Good for you though; you'll stay busy

Its the same in the southwest region too unfortunately. Now compound that issue with an equally annoying ISP that leases the lines from Qwest....maximum frustration!

I think the tech side of things they are probably great. Its the service and sales and sales teams i think that have the issues.

undomiel

Me: "Hey Cox, our internet connection is down, why?"

Cox: "Oh yeah we reworked some of our infrastructure so you have a new static IP address now."

"Oh yeah?" Gee, thanks for letting me know ahead of time. Or at all. Instead of making me call you.

Just so you know that outside of Qwest isn't all roses either.

snadam

undomiel wrote:

Me: "Hey Cox, our internet connection is down, why?"

Cox: "Oh yeah we reworked some of our infrastructure so you have a new static IP address now."

"Oh yeah?" Gee, thanks for letting me know ahead of time. Or at all. Instead of making me call you.

Just so you know that outside of Qwest isn't all roses either.

oh dont worry, every service provides has bad things. I dont want this to get too off topic so Ill leave it at that

CGN_Spec

CISCO!

Aldur

dynamik wrote:

Their service sucks. They're always having problems.

Good for you though; you'll stay busy

Ya, I've had some crappy experiences with qwest support too. One time I was attempting to do port forwarding with the pos modem/router they gave me and although I was enabling it and forwarding the correct ports, it just wouldn't work. I called qwest support, was let known this was an advanced issue and sent me up to the next group. When I got to the advanced group I was told their systems were down and that they would call me back shortly..... I never got a call back. The port forwarding started working on its on, after a few reboots, but still, I was expecting a call back on the matter.


I'm just glad that the job that I'll be working won't be a end user facing job, I've done that before, it's frustrating