From: Amyn Naran (amyn_naran@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Oct 04 2000 - 12:11:14 GMT-3
My $.02
Juniper's space is the ISPs; their boxes have greater port densities,
are faster, their routing protocols are more robust, their CLI is quite
good and, they have technologies that work, period.
To compare Cisco and Juniper is unfair. Cisco does the above; just not
as well. Cisco also does stuff Juniper doesn't.
--- Sam Munzani <sam@munzani.com> wrote:
> The biggest problem with Juniper is everything runs from ASICS. You
> don't
> have luxury of upgrading IOS for newer features like cisco.
>
> Sam
> > First I want to say that even though I work for Cisco, these are
> just MY
> > thoughts and opinions - NOT Cisco's.
> >
> > Juniper and Foundry are very much alike to me. They both have VERY
> fast
> > boxes, but they are both limited feature wise. Neither company
> does
> > Wireless, Cable, DSL, Voice, SNA, Firewalls, or the ton of other
> things
> > Cisco does. Neither company can give you a end to end solution.
> Certain
> > companies/customers have been forced to use Juniper because Cisco
> does not
> > offer a OC-192 interface for the 12000GSR at this time. I am sure
> we will
> > do fine...
> >
> > I would never say one product is better than another because every
> > implementation/application is different. I also wouldn't say ATM
> is dying
> > without specifying LAN or WAN. I used to think that before I
> worked for
> > Cisco. ATM is dying on the LAN side, but not on the WAN side. I
> would
> like
> > to see Juniper's OS one day. I think Foundry was very smart to
> make their
> > CLI look like Cisco's. You can cut and paste a Cisco ACL into a
> Foundry
> > with no problem. I myself try to accept new things, but what
> everyone
> knows
> > works better most the time. I knew a company that spent months
> trying to
> > hire someone who knew Cabletron gear, and never did. Being able to
> hire
> > people off the streets who can support your infrastructure is VERY
> > important. Otherwise you are at the mercy of the vendor.
> >
> > Just my PERSONAL $.02 cents...
> >
> > -Eddie
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf
> Of
> > Chan, Echo
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 12:09 AM
> > To: 'Brian Hescock'
> > Cc: 'Andrew'; damien; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: OT: Juniper........
> >
> >
> > Cisco are selling not only 12000 Series Router when they meet
> Juniper.
> They
> > sell a total solution. 12000 + 6509 (GigabitEthernet Switches). You
> know --
> > ATM are dying.
> >
> > I do agree with Brian. Juniper's features are so limited since they
> have
> no
> > ipx/appletalk/ibm. However, It is a fact that people are migrating
> to
> > Juniper because of MPLS.
> >
> > Do you think Cisco high-end models with no problems?? I get dialy
> report
> > from Cisco on bugs alert.
> >
> > When you type "show config". You may think it looks like C. Because
> they
> add
> > "{", "}" to better manage the config. I think we should try to
> accept new
> > thing not just happy with Cisco CLI.
> >
> > There are no different when you config the router However, Junos
> provides
> > CLI features that are good for large config file.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian Hescock [mailto:bhescock@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 11:45 AM
> > To: Chan, Echo
> > Cc: 'Andrew'; damien; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: OT: Juniper........
> >
> >
> > It's apples and oranges. Yes, someone can be faster if it's a
> > stripped down model with hardly any features. Let's see what kind
> of
> > problems they have when they start adding features... ;-) I've
> heard they
> > already have a problem with 30% of their packets being out of
> > sequence. And personally, I've seen one of their configs and it's
> > ugly. You would like it if you're a programmer because the config
> looks
> > like C. Not my idea of fun... my $.02 anyway.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Chan, Echo wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Based on BSD but only BSD you can't run JUNOS. Juniper had PC
> versions
> for
> > > laboratory. You need Intel 10/100 Network Card. All cisco guys
> know that
> > > M20/M40/160 are much better than Cisco 12000. That's why UUNET
> migrate
> all
> > > backbone routers (Actually not only backbone routers) to
> junipers. Many
> > ISPs
> > > are migrate to Juniper.
> > >
> > > Junos provides better CLI and commands semantic are similar to
> Cisco. I
> > > always try to translate Junos command to cisco equivalent.
> > >
> > > regards
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andrew [mailto:arousch@home.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 8:40 AM
> > > To: damien; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: OT: Juniper........
> > >
> > >
> > > Juniper is definitely a fat box. The OS is based on FreeBSD. If
> you
> are
> > > familiar with BSD then you will be right at home with JunOS.
> > >
> > > At 01:12 AM 10/4/00 +0000, damien wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Just wondering has anyobdy used these boxes and what are there
> feelings
> on
> > > Junipers Success in the Market place, whats the front end
> > > like.............From feedback I have received from non-biased
> Engineers;
> > > Juniper kicks ass in terms of performance but is not as feature
> > > rich...................
> > >
> > > I am just wondering down the road are we going to be going for
> > > JCIE...............I think it is wise to have experience in both,
> not to
> > > mention the money u can earn..................just
> > > pondering.................
> > >
> > > A lot of people are jumping on the CCIE bandwagon for various
> reasons;
> > > people looking for the challenge, the money, FA else to do,
> others ( the
> > > weird that is) looking for an avenue for
> > > Divorce.............etc....etc.............and hence the money is
> going
> > > down....well this is the case in the UK.............
> > >
> > > thoughts, humour, all major credit cards accepted........ :-)
> > >
> > > D
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:24 GMT-3