Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizon

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

Page 1 / 4 > >>

joeshmo 12/4/2012 | 11:57:48 PM

re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizon As a customer of Juniper and a person close to the source, this is clearly a poorly researched article and written by a Cisco disciple. Believe me, Verizon has no plans on perpetuating a useless dinasour like IGRP in the new world of VPN's and services that work through the Enterprise and Core. Cisco's edge products can do only a fraction of what they claim and a fraction of a fraction of what Juniper's box can do. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the P.O.s start coming from Verizon. So far, Juniper has revenue from Verizon in hand and Cisco is still frantically working to grab a crumb from the leftovers.

Not to mention the premier support that Cisco will not be able to provide for these advanced services. Show me one study where a GSR has beat one of Juniper's products and I'll show you a test run by a Cisco sales rep. Just ask RL.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Iagojrh 12/4/2012 | 11:57:47 PM

re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizon as a customer you've got to know that

1) VZ revels in the thought that it could panic one vendor over the other with rumors that it might lose out on part or all of the contract. Keeps competition healthy

2) Contracts of this magnitude are rarely given based on the merits of one technology over the other, although I too, am quite partial to the ERX

3) Maggie is far from a Cisco Toadie

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

sgamble 12/4/2012 | 11:57:47 PM

re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizon I am not an expert by any stretch... But why would a carrier, who is planning on mixing vendors, make a decision like this based on a proprietary protocol by our greasy friends at Crisco?

Steve.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

skeptic 12/4/2012 | 11:57:46 PM

re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizon These protocols are used in large networks to learn the best routes through private and public IP networks. The latest, enhanced version, EIGRP, also provides link-to-link, protocol-level security to avoid unauthorized access to routing tables.
-----------------
This is mostly wrong. EIGRP is used in older
poorly built networks. In its latest version,
EIGRP provides nothing that OSPF and ISIS don't
already provide in better ways.

I kind of doubt that EIGRP was a big factor
in the deal. Its the kind of thing that, if
its in the way, the carrier would push it to
the side and operate some amount of cisco
equipment (and probably existing equipment).

I think what really happened is that cisco
applied several points of leverage that Juniper
could not match in terms of rolling up a more
comprehensive deal (enterprise, etc) and probably
offering it on terms that Juniper can't match
financially.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

ready2rock 12/4/2012 | 11:57:46 PM

re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizon Hey,

Are you saying Verizon is going to run EIGRP in
their core network?

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

-ready2rock

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

joeshmo 12/4/2012 | 11:57:46 PM

re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizon lagojrh,

Points 1 and 2 taken. To point 3- reread the article if you think this article isn't heavily biased. The whole thing is written around "claims" and "sources". The one fact that we know is that Juniper is already selling into Verizon for the IP buildout. What's curiously not mentioned is that Juniper still claims they're getting the whole contract. Furthermore, every other vendor in the Verizon lab probably claims the same thing! To me, it seems that Maggie is trying to stir the pot for Cisco's benefit. Can she really believe that the deciding factor will be IGRP? I'm sure Cisco will be here for the long haul but I'll eat my hat if IGRP is what keeps the revenue flowing.

Time will tell. I'm sure Cisco won't lose this one without a fight, as this article proves. Too bad for Cisco that propaganda doesn't make network equipment perform.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

skeptic 12/4/2012 | 11:57:45 PM

re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizon Believe me, Verizon has no plans on perpetuating a useless dinasour like IGRP in the new world of VPN's and services that work through the Enterprise and Core. Cisco's edge products can do only a fraction of what they claim and a fraction of a fraction of what Juniper's box can do.
---------------
Unfortunatly, especially at larger companies,
phone calls from Chambers and a few friends
in the right places have been able to win
business for cisco that would have lost
based on their products (and their rotten
support).

The technical evaluation says no, the
recommendation says no. But then the call
from cisco comes in and the decision is "yes".

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

kbkirchn 12/4/2012 | 11:57:45 PM

re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizon In an MPLS network the Customer router (CE) must disclose its site-to-site routes to the Service Provider router (PE). Without this information, the Provider can only deliver the Customer's traffic to a fixed destination.

Communicating this routing information requires a routing protocol such as OSPF, ISIS, RIP, IGRP, or EIGRP.

If a Customer wished to use IGRP or EIGRP, AND Verizon desired to comply with the Customer's wishes, THEN a Cisco router would be required for the PE.

CE - Customer Edge
PE - Provider Edge

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

neteng21 12/4/2012 | 11:57:44 PM

re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizon Last I knew no core running IGRP/EIGRP could make use of MPLS traffic engineering due to lack of extensions to either protocol. That can't be too helpful....

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

joeshmo 12/4/2012 | 11:57:44 PM

re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizon All the customer has to do is run a real routing protocol to the PE and redistribute it's IGP routes into it. Not a big deal, even for a Cisco router.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Page 1 / 4 > >>