[c-nsp] PPPoe Access Concetrators

[Tim Devries]

The problem for us is that the PPPoE is actually done by the third party
incumbent carrier (monopoly) and switched to us via domain-name over an L2TP
tunnel, where we build a PPP session with them, who then switch it to the
end customer.   So the issue for us is traffic shaping the customer.  Using
radius we can pass the rate-limiting attributes to the virtual interface(s)
on our 7206VXR NPE-400, but on a router already running at 60% load, I'm
wondering what shaping an additional 14-1500 customers will do!  Currently
we use a third party shaping device to accomplish this.

We have been testing a third party PPP server that will do both shaping and
act as the PPP server, but that product is looking to be unworkable for us
at this point.  One option is an NPE-1G, though it's a bit more expensive
than the other option we were looking at, and to some in the office it seems
a bit scarier than what we are currently doing.

Thanks,

Tim






-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Crocker [mailto:matthew at crocker.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 11:08 AM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: Tim Devries; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] PPPoe Access Concetrators


On Aug 11, 2005, at 9:50 AM, Paul Stewart wrote:

> We're moving from Redback to the 7200's currently so my opinion is
> biased to some degree.  We have had numerous issues with our Redbacks
> that I don't see in the Cisco world....  And not trying to start a war
> on the Redbacks (really)... But 10k sessions?  Is this a marketing
> number or real world?

10K is marketing.  We have 1.5k on ours and the FE CPU is near 0%  
most of the time.

We use our SMS to handle PPPoE terminations coming in from Verizon  
DSLAMs.  Verizon grooms customers into a PVC RBE segment and we  
terminate the PPPoE on that.  We have roughly 100 PVCs configured

--
Matthew S. Crocker
Vice President
Crocker Communications, Inc.
Internet Division
PO BOX 710
Greenfield, MA 01302-0710
http://www.crocker.com