Cisco 1000 Series Aggregation Services Routers (ASR 1000)

As mentioned, the Cisco 1000 Series Aggregation Services Routers (ASR 1000) can support higher network bandwidth as compared to the ISar Routers. In addition, the ASR router can be easily scaled up by adding an SPA Network Interfaces module to support additional network interfaces if required.

stacks as a satellite or as route refletor

Cisco ASR 1000 is a competent device, it is built for multi purposes, you can use it in private cloud solutions, WAN router in your company and branches. The capability to support multiple OPEN standard routing protocols allow it to establish neighborship with customer, partner , provider devices and your own devices. Its VRF aware capability allows for flexibility.

This has been selected because it allows us to use OTV to stretch VLANs

We needed tried and true device to support both internet edge and OTV functionality. While the ASR1K line is reaching end-of-life, the Catalyst 8500-series platform was brand new so we were not ready to invest in that platform; however, in hindsight, given Cisco has EoL'd the ASR1K for software/security, likely in mid/late 2025, we are disappointed in its longevity.

serving as a WAN aggregation router for the termination of our external 10G links, we choose it for the following features BGP, PFR, Cisco Nonstop Forwarding, ISSU, Stateful SwitchoverEtherChannels

We haven't used any other manufacturer other than Cisco. [H]owever, we have used different models that Cisco offers. The ASR has a little more horsepower than the ISR. Both are very good routers though.

For cloud network all these products complement each other to ensure HA reliability, optimized path, workload mobility, multi services, multi hypervisor support to service our workloads.

As a cloud hosted services, we are using Cisco CSR1000V instead, which provides quite versatile solution in the virtualized environment.

Before standardizing on the Cisco ASR 1000 we had explored the idea of using Juniper routers. Ultimately we felt the Cisco ASR 1000 was a better fit at the time. We have been very happy with this decision, but it might not be the right decision for everyone. It fit our environment and our needs very well, Juniper is also a very good choice.

The truth was we have not evaluated another option.

The Cisco 1000 series devices in most cases perform vastly different roles in a large network than the ASR 9000s. They take up a lot less physical space, require less cooling and less power consumption at a lower cost. However, they cannot process information at the same efficiency as a Cisco ASR 9000, but if installed and configured properly, the devices can work together to efficiently perform all necessary network functions without impactful outages.

One look at the ASR and we were sold.

Bandwidth and flexibility

Cisco has a larger market share than Juniper in the router markets. Because of that, there are more certified Cisco service engineers and more online support resources compared with Juniper for troubleshooting hardware issues. The rest of our LAN infrastructure was already Cisco making the support footprint for the routers lower with Cisco than Juniper.

With the available handy skills and affirmative experience with Cisco, it was picked though some features for the aforesaid products were equally good and worthwhile.

Cisco Routers are a better fit for my org. Juniper seemed to be the best comparison, but mainly we chose to remain with Cisco because our in-house knowledge was already there. We didn’t see a big enough difference in other options to make it worth the change.

They are the industry standard and have been using them forever predating my employment.