Likelihood to Recommend - It is well suited for companies that have a big WAN environment, this devices can fit in there easily and have multiple provider circuits. - Well suited for private cloud environments where multi tenancy is required, - Device can be used as IPN/ISN device as it supports jumbo frames for an ACI multi-site/remote leaf deployment. - Device is well suited for branches that have their own DIA and MPLS circuits.
Read full review It is well suited as a WAN/Internet Edge device. It is easy to configure BGP, contexts and routing instances. Its suite of tools has saved our organization money by being able to provide services (tag stacking, for example) that our provider would normally charge us more for. Due to interface cost this would not be appropriate as a LAN aggregation device.
Read full review Pros These routers are very good at performing 24x7! This is key to running an organization where employees are working 24x7. The ZBFW feature works especially well to help lockdown and protect your network. Having the ability to perform in-service upgrades is a key feature in keeping your network up at all times. Read full review It's a robust platform, very resilient. It handles large traffic flows well. It's a flexible architecture, it can be configured with provider or enterprise options (or both!) It has an excellent versioning system, simple commit/confirm/rollback procedures! Read full review Cons The ASR 1000 series routers can, as with most devices, improve with additional memory capacity and upgraded chip sets for faster processing. There seems to be limitations on the number of routing sessions the smaller ASR devices can handle, which can be overcome with proper planning and placement within the network. Read full review Sometimes I wish that documentation was more robust, complete, though this has been improved of late. It would be nice if netflow was easier to configure. It would be nice if the platform was cheaper. Read full review Likelihood to Renew The device without a doubts performs at the level required and expected, we can renew it and use it as we have been using it for years. The device can be used as DCI, IPN/ISN, or even private cloud for customer circuit handoff, it also supports IPSec properly. The device is well suited in multiple segments of the network.
Read full review Usability All our modular contingency service exercises use this equipment, it allows us to perform this type of exercises very easily, in a controlled and effective way. It is used at least once a month for these types of events. It also allows configuration replication in computers that are under the same model.
Read full review Support Rating We have received training on the equipment, which has made us add more networks on our own, we provide first level support, we validate the publication of the equipment and we can satisfy the needs of our internal clients in terms of the prompt recovery of the affected services
Read full review Implementation Rating Implementation was as per design and all best practice configuration was followed.
Read full review Alternatives Considered Before standardizing on the Cisco ASR 1000 we had explored the idea of using Juniper routers. Ultimately we felt the Cisco ASR 1000 was a better fit at the time. We have been very happy with this decision, but it might not be the right decision for everyone. It fit our environment and our needs very well, Juniper is also a very good choice.
Read full review We preferred Juniper over Cisco for our WAN/Internet routing needs for a number of reasons. First was the price, the Juniper offering was much more competitive than Cisco's. Secondly, was feature set, Juniper's implementation of routing protocols, routing tables, and forwarding options are better thought-out than Cisco's (not to mention Juniper's longstanding use of commit/confirm/rollback features, which Cisco has only started to use recently, and only on some of their products).
Read full review Return on Investment It is a healthy return on investment with planned packed size data. Average unicast latency is low and consistent with small and large packets (barring mid-sized). Cisco devices last longer and also have a decent trade-in policy to recover some value when equipment is replaced. Higher concurrent IPSec tunnels are offered, we tested for 1500+, fielding both encrypted and a mix of encrypted and cleartext traffic. Read full review Its flexible architecture and configuration styles has saved our organization money by providing feature we would have otherwise needed to purchase from our ISPs. It has a long and healthy lifecycle, with potential upgrades for more performance if needed. (This helps alleviate the downtime associated with chassis replacement.) The only drawback is some of the highest throughput interfaces are expensive. Read full review ScreenShots