The primary use case of this solution is for the internal network, covering our entire office.
The deployment model we are using is on-premises.
The primary use case of this solution is for the internal network, covering our entire office.
The deployment model we are using is on-premises.
What I like most about this solution is that it is secure.
They need to have more marketing in Egypt.
The technical support in Egypt needs to be improved because I was struggling to get technical support.
Having documentation provided in Arabic would be nice, but not necessary, as most everyone speaks and understands English well enough.
I would like to have customer support on the ground.
This solution is stable.
This solution is scalable.
We have approximately twenty users, most of them are engineers.
It was very difficult to get technical support, here in Egypt.
There is no local support available.
Previously we used Cisco. From my understanding and from what I was told, it was complex, hard to handle, not customer familiar or customer friendly.
The initial setup is straightforward and it's easier than Cisco.
We did not implement this solution through a vendor, we had one of the team members do it. It wasn't that difficult.
I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
Both are decent products. I prefer Juniper for the following reasons:
1) Cleaner separation of data plane from control plane. Higher end Cisco devices are better at this but most of the lower end products still seem to be more integrated than I like.
2) The Hierarchical config design means I can make changes only in areas that concern me without necessarily impacting other areas.
3) Easier rollback when one makes mistakes
4) I think there are less bugs/vulnerabilities in Junos vs IOS.
5) iOS has too many flavors leads to confusion with deployment.
One more advantage of junos over iOS. Juniper adheres closer to the standards than Cisco. Epigraph is nice, auto rp is cool, but with the less protocols in the standards it's much earlier to configure junos.
We use the solution for ethernet access.
I like the solution's ease of use and stability.
The price is in the intermediate range. It is not overly expensive, but also not cheap. It could stand improvement.
I have been using Juniper Ethernet Switches for a couple of years.
The solution is stable.
The solution is certainly scalable.
Tech support is fine. There is no need to improve it.
The solution is easy to install.
While the installation time can vary depending on the project involved, for a simple one it takes around 10 or 15 minutes.
There are five engineers who were involved in the deployment.
The price could be cheaper.
We have over 1,000 customers making use of the solution, mainly in Taiwan.
I would recommend the solution to others.
I rate Juniper Ethernet Switches as a nine out of ten.
The primary use is as a datacenter, as aggregation and access switches. They are also used in wireless nodes in the core switch segment receiving all last mile services, as in optical fiber.
Juniper supports all our connectivity infrastructure in our datacenter, supporting optimal availability and performance for services.
The Virtual Chassis, because you have a centralized administration of a set of switches which makes the operation more efficient.
Support prices and licensing scheme need to be improved to allow some features to be purchased at lower costs, for example, RPM.
We previously used Cisco.
We evaluated Brocade.
We primarily use the solution for our data center.
The switches are pretty typical. They offer good control and good switching.
We're currently in the process of switching to Cisco as we haven't been too happy with Juniper.
We are undergoing a migration to software-defined networking. Different vendors have to integrate with each other and we are not seeing this type of capability within Juniper. We are getting left behind in this technology trend by staying with this solution. Juniper is also losing a bit of market share because of this.
I've been using the solution for between five and ten years.
The stability is good.
The scalability is excellent. It's one of the aspects of the solution that is quite good.
Technical support is not so good. Sometimes we contact them, but they don't offer the best service.
The initial setup is straightforward. I joined the company after deployment, so I'm not sure how long it takes.
We use the on-premises deployment model.
I'd rate the solution no more than seven out of ten.
We use only Firewalls, Juniper Switches. We don't have SD-WAN solutions.
We use this solution for connecting.
It's user-friendly.
The security is good.
Stability is an area that needs improvement.
They could improve the code, as there are some issues with it.
Marketing could be better.
I have been working with Juniper Ethernet Switches for six years.
We are using the EX series.
It's a stable solution, but there are some limitations.
I don't have any issues with scalability.
The vendor support is good.
The technical support is good.
The initial setup is straightforward. It's not complex. It's easy.
I don't have any knowledge of pricing, I am in the technical department.
It's a good product.
It's user-friendly and has good security also.
I would recommend it to others.
I would rate Juniper Ethernet Switches an eight out of ten.
After being primarily a Cisco user for many years, I find the switch to Juniper refreshing. The CLI is intuitive and I appreciate the hierarchy of the various configuration groups to be much more organized. I also think it is better with regard to config checking, and ensuring that the items entered into the config work with the rest of the config. For example if you happen to forget a line in a policy, or make an error in referencing a particular object, it will not let you commit the config. I know there are pros and cons of both configs, but once you get used to Juniper, you can see the benefit of why they organized it the way they did.
Hi, well to your point about rollbacks, the benefits of this feature are quite obvious in that they provide a fail safe mechanism should your changes inadvertently isolate you from a remote device due to some unforeseen error/mistake (it happens!).
I often hear people compare this age old Junos feature to Cisco's "reload in|at x" command, however if the difference isn't already obvious, that command results is a device reload, whereas Junos rollbacks do not. Picture a scenario whereby your action isolates you from a remote device yet that device is still carrying production traffic loads. In this scenario, the user of rollback would be able to regain access to the device without impact to traffic through the device, whereas the user of the reload command would see an outage. Consider a worst case scenario whereby the device fails to complete its boot cycle and there my friend you have hell on your hands. May as well pack your stuff into a box and grab your coat at that point.
Juniper is a very powerful open-source operating system. You are able to do routing and other tasks using the switches. I was using Juniper Ethernet Switches for a hotspot network.
The combination of hardware and software makes it a very good solution. It is a modern protocol that they have supported in the switches. The solution has good performance.
I have been using this solution for a few months.
The solution is highly stable.
I have found the scalability could be improved in the version I was using.
We have approximately 90 users using this solution.
The configuration of the solution could be easier. We had to do the configuration through the command-line interface. However, we are using an older version and the newer versions could be better with a graphical interface.
The solution does not require a license to use it.
I would recommend this solution to others.
I rate Juniper Ethernet Switches a nine out of ten.
Either vendor has a switch that will do the job. However I perferer Juniper due to
a. rollback is quick and easy in the event of issues arising from chnages
b. easier fault finding (once you get your head around how its implemented)
c. no need check the switch to find which OS feature set is installed and if memory / flash upgrade is required - its all in the OS with very few licenses (usually none) required to get full functionality if you have select the correct product in the first place
d. Hierarchical config is much easier to follow - great concept that most programmers can pickup quickly
e. don't need to learn different variants of the CLI as is required on IOS (even HP manage to stay relatively consistent there)
f. decent speed stacking interfaces on enterprise grade switches (particular 4x00 series)
g. more function for $ (at retail prices)
h. closer to standards than Cisco - easier interoperability in multi vendor environment
i. does not have legacy protocols that are not used or so rarely used that they don't matter in the day and age
Purchase and implementation of Cisco maintenance process is MUCH simpler to the end customer
Worked on both brands for a number of years.