Cisco 6000 Series Network Convergence System (NCS 6000) vs. Juniper MX Series

Since we've been using it for a long time, that justifies and explains to you that this product is a sound product and is secure. The product has great support after-sales support services from Cisco. So the moment we have an issue that we cannot resolve ourselves, it is so easy to contact the Cisco engineers. They are around the clock, they are ready to support and resolve issues, and technical issues, and also for upgrades of our networks to ensure that we have the latest patches and latest operating systems that will help us defend or secure our network better. We are very happy with the level of support we are getting currently from Cisco and I don't think we are going anywhere else other than Cisco. We are happy with the way it is currently.

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

• Packet forwarding and routing
• Tech support
• Performance

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

• I think now that we are moving into cloud migrations and cloud services, I think now the new routers that are coming out are cloud-friendly so to speak, and also can provide us with a higher level of security because of the continuous threats that we are receiving from different type of actors around the world. So security is also critical for cloud migration.

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

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

• Easy to use
• Good security

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