Cisco 900 Series Integrated Services Routers (ISR) vs. Juniper MX Series

No problems with any of the Cisco 900 Series [Integrated Services Routers] (ISR) platform features within the enterprise environment. Because these devices are running a version of IOS-XE as opposed to traditional IOS, some of the more 'basic' configurations can become more complex. In the end, the 900 Series is still able to provide the required functionality, but there is a learning curve.

Incentivized

I think the Juniper MX series is a fantastic option for data center connectivity and places that aren't very high touch, but need good reliability and uptime. These switches are a bit more difficult to use day to day, but their reliability and robustness make them a great fit for data centers.

Incentivized

• [It] works great full-featured, but [I recommend a] small router for remote sites.
• [It] can handle more traffic than it even advertises!
• [It has a] well-priced option for smaller or less critical sites.

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

• [It has a] pay as you grow model of licensing, but, [in my opinion, is] a pain to implement.
• [The] service impacting license application [could be improved].
• Configuration complexity [could be improved].

Incentivized

• Storm Control needs to have a way to see what going on in the CLI in a more straight forward fashion
• They need a GUI interface much like the old Nortel Network equipment.
• Not the routers fault but support costs have increased.

Incentivized

Working with Juniper switches can be a bit of a chore compared to other brands, like Cisco or HP. This makes me drop the rating for usability down to a 6, because for higher touch environments, I wouldn't recommend a Juniper. Outside of data center use cases, a Cisco switch would be a better option.

Incentivized

I have similar feelings about the NCS 5500 Series Router. IOS-XR is great, but the need to upgrade components to support newer features seems like a planning oversight. 400G Linecards are great and needed.... but they need all new power supplies? Really? Also, the ability to use lags across multiple linecards would be nice. I'm pretty sure that's not available, but that is more understandable.

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

• Lots of money saved in downgrading from less useful and older full-sized routers at small sites
• Time saved having to learn new commands (web GUI works great)
• Saves time training staff to manage them

Incentivized

• Being dependable has allowed our network to stay running allowing for everyone to be productive.
• Cost of the routers was very reasonable allowing us to keep our budget under control.
• Support cost on our routers is not terribly high.
• We link our routers to Cisco and Aruba with no issue. Interoperable give us flexibility of choice

Incentivized