Cisco 1000 Series Connected Grid Routers (CGR 1000) vs. Juniper MX Series

This tool is suitable for smart grid environments where remote monitoring and control is required, and arguably it may be a little less appropriate for organizations with limited resources for initial implementation and configuration. But in general it can help improve the efficiency of the electrical grid. Its advanced security, scalability and analytical capabilities distinguish it from other similar programs.

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.

Incentivized

• Segments the network.
• Provides security through the use of Access Control Lists.
• Makes routing decisions using routing protocols such as OSPF, RIP, BGP etc ...
• Provides fault tolerance.

Incentivized

• 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!

Incentivized

• Improve integration with other systems
• Some advanced features may require complex configuration
• Some functions take a long time

• 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.

Incentivized

Cisco and HPE Routers are comparable products. Both do the job well without many differences. I would say HP Routers are easier to configure but come with a small performance hit compared to Cisco routers of the same size/scope. Cisco has the brand recognition and many more certified professionals using them though.

Incentivized

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).

Incentivized

• Improvement in operational efficiency
• Reduced downtime
• Greater reliability in the electrical network

• 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.

Incentivized