Why Cisco, Not Juniper?

Competitive AnalysisThe Branch Office: Why Cisco, Not JuniperCloud computing, rich-media applications, and the explosion of mobile devices are This integrated services and architectural approach helps ensure that the entireplacing new demands and requirements on the enterprise network. The way in which IT infrastructure works together transparently while also reducing complexity,applications are delivered, the way in which they are consumed, and the types of eliminating uncertainty and delay around deployments, and reducing TCO. With theapplications have fundamentally changed and will continue to change drastically. best services and support organization in the industry (CIO Insight magazine, 2010The traditional enterprise network—specifically the branch office and WAN—that is a Vendor Value Survey), Cisco is there with you to ensure successful deployment andcentral piece to connecting the end users to the cloud services is not architected ongoing operations.to support these new trends. In fact, it has become the weakest link in the networkwith poor performance, inadequate security, and lack of application visibility and Now consider a hypothetical branch office with approximately 150 employees andcomplex management. WAN bandwidth of 45 Mbps. The branch office is implementing an IP voice system, a wireless LAN (WLAN) system covering the office, and WAN acceleration to optimize itsThe Cisco® Cloud Intelligent WAN—based on the Cisco enterprise routing, security, and connection to the head office. The branch office also has some custom applications forWAN optimization solutions—connects branch-office and remote users to the cloud and which it needs a small server. Each cube and office has a LAN connection with Powerenables organizations to deliver a superior user experience at scale to any application, over Ethernet (PoE) for its IP phones.any service, any user, and any device, using network-integrated intelligence tooptimize application performance, enhance security, and simplify management.Figure 1 shows general TCO advantages of the Cisco integrated services approach to the branch officeFigure 1. The Value of Integration© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Cisco and the Cisco logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Cisco and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and other countries. To view a list of Cisco trademarks, go to this URL: www.cisco.com/go/trademarks.Third-party trademarks mentioned are the property of their respective owners. The use of the word partner does not imply a partnership relationship between Cisco and any other company. (1110R)

Competitive AnalysisA Cisco implementation of this hypothetical situation would require four devices in Higher OpEx in the Juniper-based solution is a result of increased maintenance servicethe wiring closet: a Cisco Integrated Services Routers Generation 2 (ISR G2) router contract expenses due to the number of contracts and more estimated implementation andand three LAN switches. On the other hand, a customer using Juniper would need downtime expenses (that is, personnel costs to deploy and maintain the equipment).eight devices—six from Juniper and two from other vendors. The required Juniperdevices include a SRX Services Gateway, a WXC Application Acceleration Platform, The integrated Cisco approach makes for faster deployment; less complexity;a WLC Wireless LAN Controller, and three EX Series switches. IP voice would require faster, more certain implementation; reduced complexity; better performance; anda gateway and call-control device from a vendor such as Avaya, and the small server easier management. The Cisco approach delivers an integrated, tested, and verifiedcould come from a vendor such as Dell or HP. known good solution. A piecemeal approach, in contrast, may introduce unexpected complications, such as interoperability problems with unified communications andCisco Solution: Fifty Percent Fewer Devices firewalls, which may be difficult, frustrating, and expensive to overcome.Cisco provides a premium solution, yet the total bill of materials (BOM) to provide Table 2. Total 5-Year Cost, CapEx + OpExthe services detailed in our example for a 150-person branch office is approximately$88,000—much less than the approximately $155,000 needed to provide similar Factor Cisco Juniper, etc.services using a combination of Juniper and other vendors. Total CapEx $88,240 $154,844 Total OpEx (5 year) $52,103 $120,844Cisco Solution: Forty-Three Percent Fewer Capital Expenditures Total 5-year cost $140,343 $275,687However, the initial capital expenditures (CapEx) are but a portion of the overall cost ofowning a network; we must also factor in implementation, management, and the cost Cisco Solution: Forty-Nine Percent Less Overall Cost Over 5 Yearsof downtime. The Cisco AdvantageTable 1 summarizes the differences in operating expenses (OpEx) between the Cisco With a 25-year history of innovation and leadership, Cisco is uniquely positioned toand Jupiter solutions. understand and provide for the needs of the branch office, a role for which the Cisco ISR Router Family was specifically developed. Although we emphasize an architecturalTable 1. Overall 5-Year OpEx Costs for Cisco ISR-Based 150-Person Branch Office vs. Juniper approach to building networks, the value in working with Cisco goes beyond the Factor Cisco Juniper devices themselves and extends to areas such as professional services and support, both of which can be vital in terms of ensuring risk-free, deterministic deployments. Year 1 implementation $2,806 $5,612 Annual management contracts $7,722 $18,772 Just as success can often be made (or broken) by factors beyond the router itself, TCO Annual downtime cost $2,137 $4,274 of a network is much like an iceberg, with much of the cost being OpEx, including the Total OpEx, 5 years $52,103 $120,844 cost of maintenance, facilities, and implementation. Only a relatively small portion—roughly 20 percent of the overall TCO of the network—is the cost of the network gear itself.Cisco Solution: Fifty-Seven Percent Fewer OpEx Over 5 Years Learn more about the Cisco Integrated Service Routers at:The Cisco solution achieves 43 percent lower CapEx simply because the sum of the http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10906/Products_Sub_Category_Home.html.individual list prices for the equipment in the solution is lower than that for the Juniper-basedsolution outlined previously. Lower device count also helps achieve an OpEx reduction of 57 To get a customized report on the TCO, ROI, and energy savings with the Cisco ISR G2percent. Combining the CapEx and OpEx savings, the Cisco solution achieves a 49 percent and Cisco ASR 1000 Aggregation Services Routers, please go to:lower overall cost (refer to Table 2). http://www.cisco.com/assets/prod/rt/flash/branch-wan-calc/index.html.© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Cisco and the Cisco logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Cisco and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and other countries. To view a list of Cisco trademarks, go to this URL: www.cisco.com/go/trademarks.Third-party trademarks mentioned are the property of their respective owners. The use of the word partner does not imply a partnership relationship between Cisco and any other company. (1110R) C11-696983-00 01/12

http://blogs.cisco.com	351
http://a0.twimg.com	2
http://us-w1.rockmelt.com	1

Why Cisco, Not Juniper?

by Cisco Channels

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

3 Embeds 354

Statistics

Why Cisco, Not Juniper? Presentation Transcript