Market Leader Programs
5G Transport - A 2023 Heavy Reading Survey
2023 Open RAN Operator Survey
Coherent Optics at 100G, 400G, and Beyond
Open RAN Platforms and Architectures Operator Survey
Cloud Native 5G Core Operator Survey
Bridging the Digital Divide
5G Network Slicing Operator Survey
Open, Automated & Programmable Transport
The Journey to Cloud Native
How many mission-critical features can you load now onto IOS without slowing a box to a crawl?
Must you still re-boot IOS to add a feature?
What size of box can the new IOS-XR be squished onto? Can it be generally deployed in an enterprise, or just at the WAN edge?
unsure where you are getting your information from but you are incorrect, Cisco has far more than one OS. There are at least 5 major ones in their switching, routing and storage products alone, this is excluding the multiple release trains.
AAL5
Again, a lot of simplistic IOS myths.
About the only thing consistent among the whole spectrum of IOS products -which range from $100 CPE to the CRS-1- is the CLI. Which is actually pretty cool and very nifty as an operator, and as an engineer making a living out of working with IOS gear.
But then, when it comes to the way things work... 2 questions have been asked:
".. Must you still re-boot IOS to add a feature? .."
Depends on the product, of course. If you have a CPE and burn in new firmware, sure, you'll have to restart it. Same with some of the low end enterprise switching stuff. But *all* of the infrastructure products I am more familiar with do support stuff like ISSU and NSR/NSF. For quite some time, most of them.
".. How many mission-critical features can you load now onto IOS without slowing a box to a crawl? .."
It's no different from any other software, only there's a hardware dependent alternative. If you have express-forwarding enabled products, you can anable a lot of stuff and still pretty much run wire-rate. If there's lots of test showing that Cisco is always much slower than other because everything runs always on software on a commericial CPU, I haven't come across them.
I think too many people parrot along the same old tired lines about IOS without actually bothering to check where it applies and where it doesn't. Intellectually lazy competitors of Cisco always try to boil it down to this "do you want the same IOS running on your router as runs on an entry level CPE box?". And then the Cisco SE goes and visits the customer, can easily disprove it, and all in all tears said competitor -who tehereby loses credibility- a new one.
IOS *has* weaknesses. Feature inconsistency among product lines and release trains being the huge one, albeit one that is hard to avoid given its coverage. But generic and simplistic reliabilty and performance aspects..? No. It depends entirely on the product.
I personally find IOS a hugely impressive feat, and the software engineering behind it is pretty amazing. I also find it interesting how badly it is marketed as a whole. While it clearly is Cisco's crown jewel, Cisco continues to mostly market "in the box", if you pardon the pun.
Have seen their ads before on LR, dont see them no more.
What size of box can the new IOS-XR be squished onto? Can it be generally deployed in an enterprise, or just at the WAN edge?
Funniest thing I ever saw was a Cisco PowerPoint deck to the cable operators proposing their "solution" to compete against the carrier-class CMTS solutions from Arris, Motorola, and BigBand. They proposed to lash two non-redundant Cisco VXR CMTSs together with bungee cord and have one magically take over for the other if it went down. No mention was made of what might happen to the thousands of PacketCable VoIP phone calls, including 911 calls, that would be disrupted for several minutes while this happened.
I am not sure what the point of Juniper advertising in LR would be, at least until they have some new carrier products. Juniper has relationships, either directly or through channels, with virtually all the major carriers. Juniper certainly has credibility in both the core routing space and the edge routing space. So, I suspect talking to the major players 1 on 1 is probably more effective.
The expansions that Juniper has made are in the Enterprise and this would seem to be a pretty poor way of reaching Enterprise customers.
In terms of marketing, the thing that I am not clear with in Juniper is it's direction in the carrier space. There seems to be no strategy to continue to grow that business. As LR has pointed out (here and in other threads), the current Juniper offerings are getting long in the tooth and are being challenged by newer competitors. Perhaps they are facing some "Innovator's Dilemma" in their carrier markets?
seven
A little peeved at Juniper's law suit perhaps?.
After you build a company with Juniper's market cap write an article about success and something you know nothing about, MARKETING. Until then try focusing on what you know, oh and its not advertising, is it.?
Would this board's august collective wisdom recommend for or against it?
Thanks