|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org To: Jason Bothe <jason@rice.edu>, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com> From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 11:12:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: <5566DE15-D4B9-437F-A348-305CC46E3DFF@rice.edu> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org On 18/Feb/16 15:55, Jason Bothe wrote: > We have both and they’re both great boxes, however it’s sort of embarrassing that the ASR9k still can’t do virtualized routing, ie. logical-systems. Not sure if thats a deal breaker for you but just thought you’d like to beware. We also find OS configurations on the Juniper much easier than the cumbersome XR OS that the Cisco runs. The 9k does however get a huge win with the ability to apply a ‘pie’ or software patch while staying in service vs requiring a reload. Either way, I don’t think you’ll go wrong. It can be hit & miss with the PIE's and SMU's. We've been in situations where in-service updates (not ISSU) were documented as being hitless, but ooops... Mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |