Juniper MX Series vs. Nokia 7750 Service Router (SR)

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

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

• 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

• MPLS switching
• VPRN
• VPLS

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

• Buffer capacity
• Load balancing

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

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

• 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

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

Incentivized