Cisco 500 Series Network Convergence System (NCS 500) vs. Nokia 7750 Service Router (SR)

Well suited for10G aggregation at network edge. Small managed networks such as school districts or distributed enterprise campus. Not well suited to RPHY aggregation at network core — queuing in NCS540 results in jitter and poor RPHY performance. Allow port license purchases in smaller units. Better support for SLA performance monitoring capabilities would allow use as a box for 10G aggregation for Carrier Ethernet NNI handoff.

Incentivized

Nokia 7750 Service Routers (SR) are good as a core switch and brings in value for money, with its high capacity switching and routing. It is suited as the best MPLS switch and has been a popular choice for L3 routing too by many SP. It is not good for distribution and access.

Incentivized

• Switching.
• Routing.
• Access.

Incentivized

• MPLS switching
• VPRN
• VPLS

Incentivized

• MPLS feature set on NCS520
• Full support for RFC2544, Y.1564 across the product line
• Greater clarity of the impact of smaller buffers on NCS540 when compared to other Qumran chipsets — some use cases like RPHY aggregation at network core are not a good fit.

Incentivized

• Buffer capacity
• Load balancing

Incentivized

Cisco NCS is smaller and for us newer. Better cost with similar capabilities.

Incentivized

We have both Nokia 7750 and Cisco ASR 9000 in our network. The main advantage of the Nokia 7750 is its compatibility with the SAM element manager and users easily can configure using SAM. This feature is not found on ASR9k. Cisco is good for L3 routing especially BGP functionalities and peering.

Incentivized

• Relatively low cost access layer device.
• Very cost effective means of getting 10G interfaces.
• Some features available on other devices out of the box are more complex or absent on the NCS without licensing or assistance.

Incentivized

• Reliable switch with high uptime
• Good value compared to competition
• Versatile

Incentivized