Cisco Cloud Services Router 1000V Series (CSR 1000V) vs. Juniper MX Series

If you just need to do simple communication to Azure such as smb and rdp sessions then the Cisco Cloud Services Router 1000V Series is overkill. If you need to setup multiple mesh vpn connections to existing ISRs and have complicated routing with multiple protocols then Cisco Cloud Services Router makes that setup much easier and less work to maintain and troubleshoot.

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

• Easy and available to download with a CCO account.
• Full-featured router platform.
• Can run as many instances as you have memory to handle.
• No issues so far running in VMWare player 14.0.

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

• More integration with the switching
• A dynamic approach for software updates
• More automation features and APIs

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

Neither product supported all the protocols we needed to allow all of our locations to route. It does add some complications to the gateway and vnet setup though. Once we retired our ISRs we were able to go to Meraki vMX and the auto-vpn setup works rather well and is much simpler than IOS configs

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

• As this is available on AWS workplace, it's easy to configure and implement
• Absolute worth for money, easy ROI
• With the Cisco global support model, this becomes very easy to configure and troubleshoot and becomes part of my overall asset list
• License management could be simplified and made more cost-effective

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