Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our Test

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

<< < Page 4 / 4

pxf 12/5/2012 | 1:01:09 AM

re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our Test It will be interesting to watch how Juniper plays it cards. First play of 4 T cluster looks like a scared gladiator.
Wonder Juniper's M&A noise has something to do with this?

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

volkot 12/5/2012 | 1:01:08 AM

re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our Test > When will you and other take this router and report for face value?

As of right now, the face value of CSR is precisely zero. It typically takes over a year for most carriers to qualify a mature product, while CSR incorporates too much of the new technology to be considered 'mature'
By the time qualification rounds will be complete, JNPR will be selling 40G upgrade packages for T640s, which already _are_ qualified. In addition, CSR will be very slow to gain edge functionality and slow speed/channelized interfaces, which will confine it to LSR role only. As our previous experience shows, no one likes this because CSRs will have no chance to be redeployed while their lifetime expires.

> From this report it seems like the T640 is
> poised to loose a lot of bids

See above. I see the strength of CSR in next-gen IOS software, especially if it will manage to make it way to GSR and other platforms.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Honestly 12/5/2012 | 1:01:07 AM

re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our Test Some thought this one may be real, but like the tests that Cisco buys from Miercom and Tully the scent of desperation is oh so present. Cisco is losing market share to Juniper and there is nothing Cisco can do to stop the bleeding. Indeed Lightreading, this is not real world and more than likely not production code. The carriers used to help set up a test were indeed used. I am certain they thought this would not be the usual rigged gig. Shame shame LR and Cisco, no respect for the customer, or reader. As for World records. Cisco, try driving a 4 second dragster in rush hour traffic in Mid town. Right, no brakes, or parachute, or IOX will help prevent costly damage. Whether it be IOS, IOX,or Procket software, the CRS is what it is, a big f'ing router wiithout a win, without sw, but with a LR test. Then again maybe LR bought one, na Volpi wrote the check himself, just ask him next Thursday. Stay tuned for more Juniper wins and just get use to it. Sorry John, Scott will not sell you Juniper, and Mike there are a lot of great jobs out there. Another low from CiiiScO

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

routingfool 12/5/2012 | 1:01:06 AM

re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our Test Honestly,
your name implies that you should look at things "Honestly" In our network we are multi-vendor,
30%-JNPR, 70%-CSCO... I like to see my vendors in this kind of shootout, it benefits me i.e "CUSTOMER", I want to see them bring out the best in each other, because the only winner will be me, plus I expect good discounts from both of them... bottom line is Cisco up the ante on Juniper, I expect Juniper to bring some else to the table next round..I am tired of reading vendor posts on this board,from both Cisco and Juniper telling us what customers think, well this is a post from a customer,by the way some of us are mandated to be multi-vendor, so regardless of your bias posts I am not getting rid of Cisco or Juniper..they keep each other on edge and that helps me..

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

gotman 12/5/2012 | 1:01:05 AM

re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our Test Honestly, why did your Juniper buddies refuse to come to the LR test? Come on, LR would not push them back, because Juniper says the T640 is truly a 40G a slot router, so that qualifies it!! LR did not ask for 40 gig interfaces, if it was so, why did they use only 2 OC-768 interfaces and some 56 OC-192 cards?? You have to read between the line, juniper simply didn't want to be part of this.

What surprises me even more is Cisco bending and willing to play ball with LR & EANTC.. Cisco's website today doesn't allow me to order a multi chassis router, and nor does Cisco comment about having any multichassis beta's. Yet how could they be so brave and allow someone to test it out for them, before its released of before beta?

On the other hand we have Juniper who claims to have beta's for multichassis and they do not want to be part of the test....

All this leaves me thinking about the T640 looking up to its big brother, the CRS.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

coreghost 12/5/2012 | 1:01:03 AM

re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our Test Thats funny! Anyone with some knowledge of this industry can see that this product has some of the most advanced technology ever built into a router. But all mr coreghost has in response is this pathetic attempt at sarcasm!
-------------
The sarcasm was directed at a test that first
was held up because the CRS wasn't ready. And
then became a CRS-only test when the CRS was
ready. And the reasoning involved in making it
a CRS-only test.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

coreghost 12/5/2012 | 1:00:57 AM

re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our Test Honestly, why did your Juniper buddies refuse to come to the LR test?
------------
They didn't refuse. They were not invited.
The test started out with messages to multiple
vendors about a core router test. That test
never happened.

Then suddenly (for inexplicable reasons), the
purpose of the test shifted from core routers
to core routers with 40G physical interfaces
available. Not 40G slots, but 40G physical
interfaces.

By total conicidence, this important need to
test only 40G came about right about the time the
CRS became available to test.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

gotman 12/5/2012 | 1:00:56 AM

re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our Test >Then suddenly (for inexplicable reasons), the
>purpose of the test shifted from core routers
>to core routers with 40G physical interfaces
>available.

I'm sure Juniper has 768 interfaces which it could use in a test like this. Does it not?? The 768 interface from Cisco wasn't FCS when this test was done, why couldn't Juniper do the same.

Maybe because it wouldn't stand the test of time, or with 2 x 20G engines you would have issues doing 768? The marketing folks there are confusing me.. They release a not so read multichassis solution, yet they're too worried about showing a 768 interface to all of us who want to see these products go head to head.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

durtyphiber 12/5/2012 | 1:00:56 AM

re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our Test I took something else away from this....

I don't see this as a 'head to head' competition between the CRS and any other product. It ended up being independent testing of the CRS, as it is the only router w/ 40gig ports.

I'm much more interested in the actual results from the testing. These provide me with independent metrics on the performance of the box. The H-t-H competetions are just a bunch of posturing, which don't really mean anything to me in the real world of deploying and running a network.

The real issue is to me is my network requirements and the ability of the various networking devices to meet those requirements. This article gave me an overview of the capabilities of this box. The CRS is a platform that I haven't had much insight into with respect to operational capabilities. It's a new architecture, new ASICs, and totally new software from the GSR and IOS. My curiousity is if Cisco could deliver or not. It seems they have. Is it better than Juniper's product lines? Don't know, that is yet to be seen.

At the end of the day, all of the top contenders tend to be adequete. My real issues with consideration for network devices are ROI/ROC, payback period, investment protection, etc....

-dp

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

<< < Page 4 / 4