Slashdot Mirror
Opinions on Alternatives to Cisco Routers?
An anonymous reader asks: "I'm currently working on a project that is 'partnered' with Cisco. Despite that they make good routers, the company's relatively large size does not appear to be willing to meeting unique, customized, requirements. So what are your opinions of the alternatives: 3com, Juniper, etc? Anyone had bad/good experience with these companies? Are all their routers really essentially the same? How about comparative performance with totally customized routing solutions via Linux+Zebra or some other open solution?"
what could you possibly require that you need cisco to customize their stuff for you? with all the software/hardware coming out of that company, how's it possible that something doesnt quite entirely cover everything you need?
Don't for a instant use some elses-cisco WILL take it as a slap in the face. If you need something custom-goto someone on their end in charge, and request either the equipment, or someone whom they approve that WILL do what you want. I've dealt with Cisco before.
That said - what kind of customization are you looking for... Cisco is the gold standard on most things IP infrastructure these days.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
In my experience, Cisco can meet basically any NEED you have. A good sales engineer can fulfill almost any scenario and guarantee that it will work. The biggest downside with Cisco is, undeniably, price.
:).
Matching the featureset of a cisco installation with zebra? easy.
Matching the performance of a cisco box with Linux and Zebra? uh-uh. Not gonna happen. For a small installations maybe, but not when performance or load is involved.
Why? Cisco does everything in hardware (ASICS). You can't meet performance like that with a PCI nic and the various bottlenecks associated with standard PC-based architecture. Juniper realized this and made a business model out of it. The took some open-source OS (which I can't remember right now - BSD?) and added support for network-task specific hardware. They can match cisco on performance and load-capability if not on product line. And they do it for ALOT less. My suggestion - take a look at juniper, then throw the juni quote back in your Cisco reps face. See if you can get him to bend a little
Or at least that's what some would want :) Which would be interesting to see ...
... Theo himself is looking into replacing ciscos with OpenBSD.
...
Anyway, they already have good failover support for their firewall, nice bgpd, support for T1 hardware was recently merged into -current
Something good will come out of it, i'm sure
Juniper now has both service provider and
enterprise products, including industry leading firewall/security
boxes, SSL remote access, and small access routers.
These are priced right and have
advantages over cisco, not the least
being that Juniper is a responsive and
fast moving company.
p
...at a relatively large telco, we had Cisco pretty much rewrite one of their software products for us. We didn't scream or shout, just pointed out that the product was flawed in some areas and that we really would like to use a complete Cisco solutions. They were even flying guys up from CA on a weekly basis at one point.
Yes, it did reinforce millions of dollars worth of equipment sales. But they also probably wouldn't have lost the sales if they refused.
-psy
There are plenty of router companies. Cisco is most popular, but that is the only thing you can easily see. Any other advantage needs to be tested in the real world (or in a lab).
Plenty of companies are as good or better, but until you define your requirements (to the point that few of us are qualified to comment) nobody can say which is really better.
IP is standard. There isn't much that someone can do different and still be correct. Firewalls, speed, and some max capacity. IPv6 would be nice too. Figure your needs and then ask who will meet them.
I've worked with and around several companies trying to knock Cisco off. It is hard because even when you have a technical advantage Cisco dominates. Sort of like how Microsoft dominates, but not as extreme, and Cisco has never been accused of being quite that evil.
And beware of slick salesman who will promise you any feature you ask for in order to get a sale.
When you're trying to move more than a few
Gb/sec, you're going to need specialized
hardware. If you're down in range of E1/T1,
DS3, any reasonably recent piece of hardware
will do. In between, you need to make careful
hardware selections, or at least buy something
with a few PCI-E slots.
I doubt that you can
justify replacing Juniper kit with Zebra kit
on a bang/$ basis in that middle tier,
unless you are a hobbyist. The top tier
belongs to Cisco and a few other heavies.
Cisco on the bottom is just a gratuitous
waste of money, unless you're scrounging
off of ebay.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
don't listen to the other guy saying cisco will take it personal. First they won't even know, second we are a cisco partner and it's actually a pretty rare experience to even talk to someone at cisco (unless your techs are idiots and have to call them left and right).
If you have to go with something other than cisco you may as well be using your own linux solution (since they are basically all using embedded linux ANYWAY). Go with something like a via mini-itx board/case (rather nice solid case on caseoutlet.com that I use alot) or a ppc board.
Either way the main thing your looking for is something that can be passively cooled. I recommend having a case with a fan even if the chip is supposedly passively cooled. That way if the fan dies on you it's not a big deal. You also want solid state storage and enough ram to run the OS out of it. The general idea is to eliminate moving parts. Once you are running completely out of memory, and have no essential moving parts... you've got dedicated hardware devices matched at least equaled in this respect. And a 1ghz c3 at the very least equals 200mhz specialty chip (which are quite rare in practice despite everyone citing them to defend said routers).
Nope, the biggest concern your going to have is bus speed. I'd keep it in mind.
I hope you're not referring to setting up a shoe-based network. that's so routing in 1986...
click-clack, front and back. I'm not moving this car otherwise.
Your problem seems paradoxical. If your company isn't that big, I don't see how you would need any customization beyond what anyone off the street could get from Cisco. On the flip side, if you are that big, Cisco (as well as other companies) will do quite a bit to make sure you're happy.
HP procurve products carry a lifetime warranty.
Though I wouldn't recommend it, I've seen 30 systems all accessing the internet behind a $30 linksys router (appears to belong in a home network) with zero complaints. It was configured to work as a NAT and also provided port forwarding and log streaming. Though I doubt it could handle much more, it worked well for the given workload and setup needs.
So I don't think a cisco router is necessary for every network. For small networks, cheaper solutions work fine. Just remember that if you underestimate your future needs, it can cost you dearly later. But I've heard even cisco zealots talk about the routers crashing under load, which obviously should be unacceptable for any hardware of "enterprise" quality, but I haven't been around them long enough to see it for myself.
Search google for 'cisco "lawful interception"' if you like a good scare. Also, the fact that their IOS source code was recently stolen is another thing to be concerned about.
But what do I know? My experience with cisco routers is limited to a single class on network security. They're very flexible and featureful routers, certainly top quality even if not bug free, but whether you need one is highly dependent on what you'd want it to do for you.
Yeah verily I say to you, avoid the mark of 3Com for they sucketh greatly. If thee seeketh the path of enterprise solutions then also seeketh the company of Cisco or their ally Juniper, thus will you avoid the weeping of your women and the wrath of your superior.
Here endeth the lesson.
Brother Ed Almos
Budapest, Hungary
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
Core Network:
Juniper
Layer 2/3 routers: (Can still perform all router functions, but are cheaper per-port)
Riverstone Networks
Extreme Networks
I wouldn't recommend anyone else. Alcatel, Foundry, and 3COM haven't really impressed me.
Interestng note, Qwest uses Juniper M20/40s in their core OC28 network. Juniper, IMHO, is the only real Cisco competitor for a network backbone. And, Juniper uses a BSD OS on their routers.
I've had good experience with riverstone support.
I work in an environment where we see many different router vendors every month. Riverstone seems to be the ones who stick around. Also, you might not have heard of them because they sell mostly MAN (Metro area networks) which are most deployed abroad.
-n
I know of several IT shops that will not allow non Cisco equipment into their infrastructure. Would make it hard (if not impossible) to qualify for those accounts.
Cisco is good, but they're by no means in a class all their own from a performance or capability point of view. Personally, I've found Extreme Networks can often offer considerably higher performance at a price that's a bit lower than Cisco's - and the care and feeding of Extreme's gear is *way* easier than Cisco's, too, which is a cost that you should NOT ignore...
I have nothing against Cisco, but Extreme "gets" performance far more than Cisco - for instance, Extreme's gigabit switches have deeper buffers than Cisco's which is irrelevant for most networking tasks, but shows up big-time when you try to do something serious like, say, storage-over-IP, or a cable head-end: it's just way too easy to overrun Cisco's buffers and wind up with your data all over the floor. Of course, if you ever have to retransmit anything because of this, the huge latency involved in that obliterates any chance of good performance. Extreme's engineers know this, and design their gear accordingly.
I'd suggest giving them a chance as an alternative vendor. (I have no relationship with Extreme, either, except as one pleasantly surprised by the company on several occasions.)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Doesn't change the point that there are MANY IT shops out there (some quite large) that will only accept Cisco equipment.
Many vendors get around some of the issues by implementing the Cisco CLI - making management of siad devices easier, they are managed just like all of the other cisco devices in their shop.
This is just a reality if you are an equipment vendor - might as well recognise it and move on
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Okay, so I do network engineering for a living. I've been doing it for about eight years, so I think I have some insight for you. First off, ebrandsberg's +5 moderated statement (#9567080) is a little bogus.
While the math on the hardware is straight, he fails to comprehend that the routing engines of Linux and FreeBSD are completely not designed for rapid routing and forwarding lookups. While there is some progress being made in this area, it is incredibly slow work. The Linux and FreeBSD IP stacks are not designed for packet forwarding and rapid cut-through switching; they're designed for dealing with an entirely separate problem, and the code is pretty ugly compared to the rest of the large body of network code. BSD has a leg up on Linux, but 2.6 is catching up fast in this regard.
I don't understand what you think you're not getting from Cisco. From an innovation perspective, Cisco has pretty much every feature in real-world networks deployed that people need, with some minor exceptions in the MPLS world. While Juniper beats them on lookup and engine performance, the Juniper backplane has some distance to go when coupled with large amounts of traffic. Your own description of your problem isn't sufficient data for me to really speak to your requirements, but I have to go on record here and say I think your statement about Cisco not able to provide unique, customized needs is a little off-kilter. I question what your unique and customized needs really are, because the reality of network engineering is you find a set of features, you find a box that meets your performance requirements, and you roll out. Cisco has a feature/performance mix for every network from A to FF, including yours.
If your sales team isn't working well, then find a different one. This is standard business practice, and not unique to Cisco.
Please do not take the advice of other trolls in this thread who suggest that they can recommend you a vendor without knowing intimate details of your application. They are snakeoil salesmen. People who suggest Juniper, Extreme, Riverstone, may all have good recommendations, and they may be sound for your application, but I wouldn't make that judgement call without being absolutely certain that they knew all your requirements. For example, I do over 5Gb/s outbound to the Internet on Foundry Networks gear, and while it works, I can't honestly say that i'm happy with it for the features that I need. We gave Juniper a shot and they didn't have the right cost-per-port/density that we needed, so we ended up heading in Cisco's direction. This decision took me about a month and a half in comparing all the options, and doing a feature matrix that was weighted towards what I needed.
This may all seem like stupidity or busywork to you, but I assure you it is not. Any network design requires this much attention, and your company will thank you for it. Do not try to do things cheaply - the PC router road is a worn one, mostly because people come back down the same path they took to get there and go off in another direction.
If you are insistent on using "open-source" using Zebra, GateD, or Click under FreeBSD, Linux, or something else, I would advise you to wait for some time unless your traffic needs are under a couple of megs a second.
If they're not exactly a large company, they might be looking for somebody who doesnt screw around with contracts ala Cisco for IOS updates (security updates do not count). This is where PC talk is being thrown around since that appears to be the only solution for some since they've had a bad taste of Cisco equipment from the start. If you arent clean to start with, you arent going to be able to be able to compete plain and simple. Being overly closedminded about stuff to the point that it takes code theft to show is definitely not someone I'd want to deal with. That "network engineer" troll, if anything, he doesnt know that money doesnt grow on trees and contracts are just ways to guarantee gouging.
For the OC series stuff, it's not on cards yet since they still want to milk money off of copper versus trying to get FTTDoorstep a reality. If we ever do see anything of such (OC cards), it's probably going to have significant development where the fiber is plenty, namely Sweden since they dont have their heads in the sand on developing for more than the [un]Holy Dollar.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
As you can see, this is no small installation. While Cisco is an obvious choice for this kind of setting, it is not by far the only one. When we built this system in early 2002 there were reasonable offerings from a number of other firms like Extreme Networks, Enterasys and Alcatel.
As strange as it may sound, an all-in-on shop like Cisco is especially great for small networks. If you build a big one, you must not commit yourself to any vendor too early. Preferably not at all. They'd charge you a fortune.
http://oem.imagestream.com/PCI_1000.html
/ 11 14966.html
.
.
.
.
http://solutions.sun.com/catalog.static/en_US/6
There are other ppl providing card solutions, I have
seen a few from back in the day before the DOT BOOM
went DOT BUST
While I worked for Cisco I researched alternatives
Some of these cards were reverse engineered to make the
original juniper gear I believe
juniper has since made more robust equipment
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Support - Cisco's TAC (Technical Assistance Center) is best of breed. You'd be hard pressed to find a better help desk. They'll help you resolve a problem that comes up, or they'll give the clueless newbie a completely functional router configuration from scratch. Technical support is what accounts for the difference in price between a Cisco product, and a comparable product from another vendor.
Widely Available Knowledge - Because Cisco has been around so long, and because IOS has maintained a consistant interface since its debut, it's not hard to find people with Cisco knowledge. You can go anywhere to get formal Cisco training, and there are hundreds (if not thousands) of Cisco technical titles available in any bookstore with a technical section.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
if you MUST have a brand name, get Foundry, best damn quality routers and switches at a better price and better performance...
cisco routers and switches are total crapola.
then again, theres always things like Zebra, which even it blows cisco out of the water...
The bottom line is that a business network is not the place for tinkering with "cool stuff." This goes for infrastructure equipment, servers, and definately PCs. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT build your own equipment. It is just silly. You do not get any kind of warranty that is worthy of business needs. You are not going to get the hardware consistancy you are looking for, and you are not going to have the support.
As far as servers go, we use either IBM or Compaq (none of the HP models). For desktops Dell or IBM. For laptops IBM or Toshiba. And for networking equipment, Cisco. Cisco equipment is worth ever sent. You can not beat them on the total package... if you argue it, then I will ignore you, because you have no clue what you are talking about. The hardware is tested, is stable, is consistent. The software is stable solid, and updated in proper fashion. Furthermore, the software is feature rich and without excessive bloat. The support is the best you can get.
Yes, it sometimes causes sticker-shock... but bite the bullet and pay a little now, or you will pay in some way later... be it in buying Cisco after the fact, losing your job, or worse.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
When Cabletron split up as a company, they founded four new companies: Enterasys Networks (Enterprise Networking), Riverstone Networks (Carrier Class Networking), Global Network Technology Services, and Aprisma Management Technologies (Network Management).
At the time of the split (circa 2000), Enterasys has some pretty sharp routing gear in the SmartSwitchRouter 8000 line. Since they hired ex-Cisco-IOS-engineers, and they were in the process of developing a new line of routers, they got the jump on a couple of nice features that Cisco was also working on developing -- hybrid mode and editable ACLs. Hybrid mode allowed both layer 2 and layer 3 configurations to exist in the same configuration file, so there is no distinction between the interface you use to configure layer 2 or layer 3. Editable ACLs made life so much easier -- no need to maintain an offline copy of your ACL, just edit it in place. You could re-arrange ACLs statements pretty much any way you wanted, and it was easy to work with. The Enterasys routing gear supported essentially all of the same functionality that Cisco did, and the pricing was a little better. Riverstone is just the big-bad upgrade of Enterasys so you can route more data across faster lines. Heck, the Riverstone gear even looks a bit like the Enterasys gear.
Along those lines, 3com used to be pretty decent back in 1998/99, but as a company, they really don't know what direction they want to go in. I remember working for a consulting company at a large client site, where they bet the farm on 3com, and 3 months into a massive campus deployment, 3com yanked support for their entire campus-class L3 switching platform, the CoreBuilder 9000. Extreme Networks was tagged as the company to step in and fill the void, but it was not an ideal situation. Last I heard, everything at that location was then migrated over to Cisco. It's like they used to say back in the old mainframe days -- no one ever got fired for buying IBM. No network engineer today will ever be fired for buying Cisco. You must balance your networking needs with your support needs. There is nothing so key as being able to place one phone call and have an exact replacement part show up NBD -- no pain, no sweat. All you gotta do is back up your configs.
Nortel/Bay Networks used to have the best support ever -- two minutes to an engineer that knew their stuff. But then again, they also fell by the wayside during the Internet bubble implosion.
Hm... regarding your network design, I highly doubt that you have a networking issue that cannot be solved by some combination of readily available Cisco equipment. Don't make your design more complicated than it needs to be -- it will only cause you more headaches down the road than you wish to deal with. I can't imagine that as a small company, you would have any need for dual T3s with redundant BGP peering paths and an STP configuration so complicated that would take two hours to troubleshoot if a network card got fried. If all you need to do is move data fast, and keep it available, which is pretty much what 95% of the world wants to do, aggregate to dual cores and route from there. Drop a firewall on the Internet connection and any third party networks so you have some control.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this company, they make pretty good equipment and it already has some features not found on Cisco stuff.
We have a full network of this stuff, and we are currently upgrading our core, then moving outwards, plan to do gigabit to every desktop in the next 2 yrs. The new Management tool for the router seems sweet, since the last one sucked ass, it will cost though.. The eqipment isn't cheap but they seem willing to give pretty good discounts (I'm guessing to make sales quota).
we are happy with the preformance of our SS8600 core routers, and some might be up for disposal shortly.. this was due to the upgrade be cause the support contract on the equipment is no longer offered... not because there is anything actually wrong with the units.