Bigleaf vs. Cisco Catalyst 8000 Edge Platforms

Bigleaf is great for getting good performance out of two mediocre ISPs. Bigleaf is great for getting the combined bandwidth of two or more ISPs without having to subscribe to higher tiers with the ISP. I can't imagine Bigleaf would do much good for a business with only one ISP. Reporting with Bigleaf is helpful in documenting any issues with an ISP - I can show an ISP performance history if we experience a problem.

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

• Does not add a security layer - We have our own security layer and did not want an additional one.
• Combines bandwidth from multiple ISPs to provide a bigger pipe.

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

• I can't think of anything to add here. It perfectly meets our needs!

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

We use Cisco Catalyst 8300 Routers for our edge environments. Most of these products are implemented for WAN communication. We have Off sites and these off-sites are configured with C8300 Routers. We felt it pretty easy and secure, although the software versions is the one which gives us some problem. When we try to upgrade the routers with latest IOSXE software, it usually does upgrade, later after digging deeper found the ROMMON Version also need to be upgraded too. May this needs to addressed.

Incentivized

Any time we've had a problem, Bigleaf support has been readily available in English. Support seems competent, and when one hardware device failed we were quickly provided with a replacement

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

Bigleaf doesn't add a security layer. Competitors we looked at all bundled in security from Cisco or Fortinet, and we didn't want to learn another product and have a competing security layer. With Bigleaf we are able to leverage our existing security solution.

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

• Bigleaf has dramatically improved our internet uptime and provides metrics to track that.
• Bigleaf protects our internet performance by balancing ISPs so we don't experience poor performance when one ISP has a problem.

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