[179798] in North American Network Operators' Group
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka via NANOG)
Thu May 7 17:08:46 2015
To: Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com>, Colton Conor
<colton.conor@gmail.com>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <E3093354-9A10-4075-BACF-C2274404CF6C@gmail.com>
From: Mark Tinka via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 21:08:45 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Delivered-To: nanog@nanog.org
Received: from the-host.seacom.mu (ge-1.ln-01-jnb.za.seacomnet.com [105.28.96.5])
by mail.nanog.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAC232C00ED
for <nanog@nanog.org>; Thu, 7 May 2015 21:08:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=Mark-Tinkas-MacBook.local)
by the-host.seacom.mu with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX)
(envelope-from <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>)
id NO002A-000B53-BP; Thu, 07 May 2015 23:08:34 +0200
Subject: Re: Alcatel-Lucent 7750 Service Router (SR)
To: Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com>, Colton Conor
<colton.conor@gmail.com>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
References: <CAMDdSzNXiBvyiBm6SFtTkdc5YQCXO-tO4+U8x45vB4OAoA8nUw@mail.gmail.com>
<E3093354-9A10-4075-BACF-C2274404CF6C@gmail.com>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Message-ID: <554BD451.1000903@seacom.mu>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 23:08:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E3093354-9A10-4075-BACF-C2274404CF6C@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 7/May/15 15:16, Phil Bedard wrote:
> Forgot to send this yesterday=E2=80=A6=20
>
> We use them in our networks along with ASR9Ks and MXs. There are a lot=
of them deployed around the world doing very similar things as ASRs and =
MXs. The config is more like Juniper than Cisco IMHO. Being kind of the=
=E2=80=9C3rd=E2=80=9D vendor they have a tendency to implement features =
proposed by both Cisco and Juniper faster than Cisco and Juniper when pro=
posed by the other vendor. For instance Segment Routing is a Cisco thing=
, but ALU has already implemented it in their latest 13.0 software, Junip=
er is sort of dragging their feet on it because it=E2=80=99s a Cisco thin=
g. Same goes for NG-MVPN (BGP signaled multicast VPN). Cisco dragged t=
heir feet on it because it was a Juniper thing, ALU had no issues impleme=
nting it much sooner. Most of ALUs innovation is on the MPLS services si=
de. We use them for business VPN (L2 and L3) but the underlying protocol=
s are all standard stuff and interoperate with everything else.=20
I went to an ALU lab last year to look at some of their kit.
Very impressive in the BNG space, and they've had a good reputation for
that even before I laid hands on one.
The CLI is pretty neat, and easy to learn.
You're right about ALU not being fussy (but being faster) on
implementing features that Cisco and Juniper squabble over.
We have just received a test router we have for the next couple of
months, and may consider them for some roles in the network if we are
happy. My only gripe with ALU is their Metro-E offering is currently not
where I'd like it to be.
Mark.
