Cisco 2000 Series Connected Grid Routers (CGR 2000) vs. Juniper MX Series

The Cisco 2000 Series Connected Grid Routers (CGR 2000) is well suited in an enclosed environment where there is no air con in place, and it may get quite hot. It provides copper and fiber connections to the next site so if you have a fiber in place, it suits as well. As it's not designed for speed, so if you are after high speed links, such as 10G and above, it is not the choice.

Incentivized

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

• Resistant to many elements that its exposed to
• Work well in higher temperatures
• Compact enough to be installed in an inground box

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

• Harder to find and acquire than other routers

Incentivized

• 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

Have not had to use support yet but would follow our current Cisco process.

Incentivized

While the Cisco Catalyst 8000 Edge Platforms provide better throughput and thin chassis (1 RU) compared to the Cisco 2000 Series Connected Grid Routers, the Cisco 2000 Series Connected Grid Routers survive in a hot, non-ventilated/aircon enclosed environment and, at the same time, provide connectivity from the sites back to the data center.

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

• Saved money on replacing standard routers that die in those environments
• Saved time with the easy linking and connection options
• Given us peace of mind that the device will continue to run without intervention

Incentivized

• 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