Arista 7000 series vs. Cisco Catalyst 8000 Edge Platforms

Core and data center applications are the strengths of Arista products. The distribution layer is also a good fit. For the access layer, it would be more of a niche product.

Incentivized

With the flexibility of sizing options, the Cisco Catalyst 8000 Edge Platforms has worked to deliver solutions for our various needs. Smaller systems offer strong connectivity for office developments. Mid-range options have served our larger campuses well. Our data center deployments of the larger systems have provided up to 100G connectivity and advanced routing solutions. The Cisco Catalyst 8000 Edge Platforms continues to meet our needs and exceed our expectations.

Incentivized

• The 7304's along side our core network design has provided 100% uptime during the 5 years of deployment.
• The multi-chassis LAG has provided near 100% connectivity to the distribution and access switches.
• Very low maintenance attention is needed.

Incentivized

• More resources for tunneling
• Ability to use sdwan softwre
• More memory for tcam tables
• Ability to utilize T1 lines for PRI
• Ability to act as a SBC for VoIP communication
• Rfid usage

Incentivized

• The 7304's lack a graceful non-intrusive upgrade method even though they are dual supervisor.
• I would like to see more integration with Aruba's ClearPass and Airwave products.

Incentivized

• Adding more NIM slots on motherboard
• Adding PVDM slot for use cases where the router is used only for trans coding
• Adding more granular tiers for DNA licensing. For example it is a big gap between 2000Mbps (400 Mbps agg) and 1Gbps (2 Gbps Agg)

Incentivized

Because I have had no issues with this product line and have grown go really trust in it. One of the besr thing is that this has had less vulnerabilities that the past cisco router that I have dealt with. In my line of work needing to upgrade code is always something that needs to be done after hours and most likely on weekends.

Incentivized

Either you deploy those routers as a standalone, or as part of the SD-WAN fabric, the amount of features and settings you can configure on them, is well beyond any other vendor or product on the market. While this may bring some configuration complexity, availability of support for variaty of different protocols and features allows you to solve almost any network challenge you may face

Incentivized

I have always had great response time and have never been let down by cisco support. I have had issues where the person who was assisting me was not able to provide a resolution but by utilizing his team members they where able to come together to provide a answer and resplve the situation.

Incentivized

the licensing is messy

Incentivized

I have used the Catalyst 6500 series in the past. From my point of view, the Arista surpasses the Catalyst on just about every front. Originally we were planning on implementing the Nexus 7000/7700 series switches for our core. Though a little more feature rich, it did not provide features we needed that the Arista did. The Nexus also was a confusing and complex platform to work with. Also, the Nexus was a significantly more expensive solution. Although very happy with the Arista switches we may evaluate the Aruba HPE 8400 chassis-based switches along with Arista switches in the future.

Incentivized

Compared to the Cisco 2000 Series Connected GRID Routers, CGR2010, the Cisco Catalyst 8000 Edge Platforms is more powerful in processing, and it has the capability to do the segment routing. It is easier to install physically and occupies less space in the rack, consumes less power, and saves more for the company.

Incentivized

• The Arista 7000 series met or exceed our data center switching and routing needs.
• It provided a more cost effective alternative to other products we were considering.
• Implementation was quick and easy due to the simple standards-based configuration.

Incentivized

• Improving the performance and the availability, it has increased the SLA we can ensure to the customers and so the sales has increased
• The initial expense is really high so the breakeven point is not so near
• The opex for licensing is high too

Incentivized