[cisco-bba] 7204VXR vs ASR1001-x (as LNS / provider is LAC)

[Bruce Technical]

Hi Nathan,

*"*but you can activate evaluation licenses which turn to RTU after 30
days, still honour based but TAC won’t help for issues without them." <<<
You mean we have to purchase licenses after 30 days or do you mean features
will work without purchase but there won't be any TAC support? I am
wondering if Cisco even sells those licenses anymore and if they are not
transferable this means an item from ebay won't do the job.

"Half the sessions come in as direct PPPOE and the rest come in over L2TP
tunnels. " <<< I am planning for NPE-G2 as everyone is suggesting it but
why would half the session come in as direct PPPoE and rest over L2TP? is
that how this work or just your infrastructure?

"We also do NAT for about 60% of the sessions too which increases the CPU
usage." <<< Why do you do NAT? Don't your clients get their own public IP
address without any NATing involved? Or is this some sort of inbound
traffic shaping?

"Still think that is fair, 7204vxr limited to 3gbit max using all ports,
and ESP40 will do 40gbit + a whole heap of other stuff.  " <<< Given there
is only 3 usable ports on NPE-G2 and no other NPE modules available the
only option for us is to stack when we grow or move to ASR1001-x when price
makes sense. We get a 1gbps fiber coming to us from ISP so that should be
just fine but as Harald mentioned 7204vxr+NPE-G2 realistically does up to
500mbps with this setup so we might have to soon stack. Can we not have a
network design like this without worrying if our Service Provider supports
multiple LNS IPs on our end:

                                                  * Service Provider*
*                                                                |*
*                                     -----some managed switch -----*
*                                        |                   |
          |*
*                               7204vxr-A    7204vxr-B     7204vxr-C*

And we ask the switch to somehow load balance things?

Regards,


On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Nathan Downes <nathandownes at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Bruce,
>
>
>
> Yes we got Advanced IP Enterprise?? + BB license (500 sessions), can
> increase later if necessary, I think without them the commands do nothing
> on a ASR1001-x, but you can activate evaluation licenses which turn to RTU
> after 30 days, still honour based but TAC won’t help for issues without
> them.
>
>
>
> 7204vxr I just got ADV IP Enterprise and it did everything I needed, they
> didn’t do they charge for each feature option for them (or I just didn’t
> know about it), just make sure you get a NPE-G2 and not one of the earlier
> engines.  Half the sessions come in as direct PPPOE and the rest come in
> over L2TP tunnels.  We also do NAT for about 60% of the sessions too which
> increases the CPU usage.
>
>
>
> I remember reading about the radius challenges, but I don’t think we used
> those features, apart from the config for the radius being in a slightly
> different way it was pretty easy to setup.   I would think with just DSL
> you could easily do 1k+ sessions on the 7204vxr without stretching it, if
> you are expecting quick growth above that I would look at the ASR, hard for
> me to guess though because not that many DSL connections.  Price difference
> is huge, here 2nd hand ASR1004, ESP40, RP2, SIP40, 10gbit module and 3 x
> 8 x 1gbit module + licenses and smartnet came out at about 50k.. where we
> got the 7204vxr about 4-5 years ago for 5k.
>
>
>
> Still think that is fair, 7204vxr limited to 3gbit max using all ports,
> and ESP40 will do 40gbit + a whole heap of other stuff.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bruce Technical [mailto:brucetechnical at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, 12 February 2017 10:36 AM
> *To:* Nathan Downes <nathandownes at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* cisco-bba at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-bba] 7204VXR vs ASR1001-x (as LNS / provider is LAC)
>
>
>
> Hi Nathan,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
>
>
> 1- ASR1001-x need IP Advance licenses ($6k) and sessions licens (500 for
> $5k and 4500 more for another $5k+). Do you need those for your setup?
>
>
>
> 2- Are there any licenses you have to buy for the 7204vxr series to be
> able to do LNS/LAC or VRF and L2TP?
>
>
>
> Side note: There are some Radius challenges apparently that the new ASR
> will throw your way.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Nathan Downes <nathandownes at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> We use a 7204vxr with an NPE-G2 as an LNS,  Carrier sends sessions from
> their LAC to us via L2TP tunnel.
>
>
>
> Use it more for FTTx than DSL, have about 30 DSL sessions and 400 FTTX
> connections, varying fom 12/1 to 100/40.  Pretty impressed with the NPE-G2,
> we average about 30-40% CPU with those connections, no extra cards in
> device, just using standard 3 gigabit ports on the NPE, one for inbound
> sessions, one for internet and one for radius.
>
>
>
> In the process of putting in an ASR1004 with an ESP40 in a couple of
> weeks, a lot more coin than the 7204, but consolidating a bit and we do a
> lot of L2 Fibre connections to business customers, biggest reason is to get
> netflow for new data retention laws.
>
>
>
> Not being a Cisco expert by any means, moving from a switch platform to a
> router platform has been a huge learning curve!
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-bba [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf
> Of *Bruce Technical
> *Sent:* Sunday, 12 February 2017 7:03 AM
> *To:* cisco-bba at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* [cisco-bba] 7204VXR vs ASR1001-x (as LNS / provider is LAC)
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> We are entering the DSL reseller market and costs for ASR1001-x or
> ASR1002-x are in the $20k+ for Cisco ASR1001-x + IP Advance Licenses + 500
> Sessions.
>
>
>
> We are considering used 7204VXR. What is it in ASR1001-x that 7204VXR
> can't do for example?
>
>
>
> Our Service Provider require LNS/LAC, L2TP, VRF, and Radius.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-bba/attachments/20170212/3d1c25ec/attachment.html>