Cisco 1000 Series Aggregation Services Routers (ASR 1000) vs Oracle SD-WAN (Talari)

• In most cases, the larger ASR routers such as the 1006 and 1009s have sufficient capabilities to be used as a Core network router.
• The smaller ASRs such as the 1002 devices are best suited on the edge, capable of handling a limited number of connections due to the fixed chassis.

Read full review

• Failsafe- ability to aggregate low cost link and increase enterprise WAN bandwidth and also provide safe failor over in case of link interruption, with almost zero drops. In a lab test for voice it works perfectly for voice.
• Config Change without system interruption (change config and apply it during Maintenance windows).

Read full review

• Licensing on the routers is more complicated than it needs to be. We have the ASR routers along with ISR routers both have the license of the advanced service, however, on the ISR routers that license did not include the app-X feature needed to send the application specific net-flow data we wanted. It would be better if Cisco was consistence with the features included with licenses.
• Some software patches are quite involved as there is a boot loaded and IOS that must be upgraded.

Read full review

• Talari Aware management solution very complex to set up useful dashboards
• Management interface seems overly complex (7.3), though this was supposedly improved in 9.0

Read full review

• 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

• lowes oue WAN links Cost
• Lower our Tshoot time /remote office

Read full review