jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | reply to pstewart
Re: ERX 310 capacity If Juniper was able to keep an old model for so long, is that a sign that Cisco is asleep at the switch and not seeing opportunities to introduce a model that would have made the 310 uncompetitive years ago ?
Or does Cisco have such a terrible image outside of cable companies that it would be too hard for it to penetrate the DSL market ? |
|
 pstewartPremium,VIP
join:2005-10-12
Peterborough, ON
kudos:1 | said by jfmezei:If Juniper was able to keep an old model for so long, is that a sign that Cisco is asleep at the switch and not seeing opportunities to introduce a model that would have made the 310 uncompetitive years ago ?
Or does Cisco have such a terrible image outside of cable companies that it would be too hard for it to penetrate the DSL market ?
Cisco is very popular in the service provider world. It's competitive router for many years was the 7206VXR in my opinion. It was good for roughly anything under a Gig of traffic when it came to BRAS functions and you were typically limited to the three GigE ports on the box anyways (there were six slots you could use as well but with several restrictions). It wasn't purpose built to support BRAS - where the Juniper ERX was purpose built with BRAS functions in mind (despite it being capable of many other functions).
Juniper became quite popular over the years against Cisco and other competitors because of it's solid architecture and price points. It is the underdog per say. They also came out with the ERX1440 box which Cisco didn't have anything competitive towards other than the 10k series (which still didn't stack up in my biased opinion).
In the past few years Cisco stepped up with the ASR 1k and 9k boxes - very limited exposure to them personally but have heard a lot of good things from customers with them deployed. |
|
| reply to jfmezei
Until Cisco released the ASR1K, they also had relatively low-end xDSL termination capabilities. The ERX1410 and 1440 were the largest scale boxes until the E120/320 came out. Juniper had a good product for the market. Now you can get PPPoE/LNS services in other boxes (ASR1K, Juniper MX, etc.)
I know it sounds so strange, but these limitations exist everywhere. In same cases, I've seen setup with hairpin connections on a box so they can terminate a service on port A and encapsulate it with port B. Port A is wired to port B physically because you can't stack the services on a single port. Alcatel lucent sells a hairpin CARD you plug in to the router to replace a plugable SFP/XFP hair pin connection. These limitations are easing but still present: some functions continue to be sub line rate and scale isn't infinite. That's life. |
|
|
|
| reply to pstewart
said by pstewart:Cisco didn't have anything competitive towards other than the 10k series (which still didn't stack up in my biased opinion).
Cisco tried to compete in the BRAS market with the 6400, but it wasn't a great box. It was a hybrid of the LS1010 ATM switch with NPE-200 class CPUs on individual blades. We had a bunch of them, but with NRP-1 cards, you could get a maximum of 400 to 600 subscribers per slot - hardly a usable solution. We ended up yanking the NRP cards and using using them as ATM switches, front ending 7206/VXRs with NPE-G2 processors and PA-A3-OC3 cards.
Within the next two weeks, I should have a significant amount of our ATM traffic offloaded from our network as we replace the ATM uplink cards in our DSLAMS with GIGE cards, and replacing our ATM based BLCs with GIGE based BLCs.
We're finally able to do this as we completed our dark fibre build to the Windsor COs last week, and finished migrating off the Bell supplied SONET transport we used to have between the COs.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net |
|
