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

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

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

• The reliability of Juniper switches is great. They don't have nearly as many vulnerabilities or issues as other switch brands.
• Juniper has a good config commit system.

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

Juniper (Junos) and interoperability. Junos is so powerful as a troubleshooting tool and also as a configuration tool. We had test and roll back configurations which is very helpful. Being able to link to over vendors equipment and extend features is very nice to have.

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

• 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

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

Incentivized