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

Bruce Technical brucetechnical at gmail.com
Tue Mar 28 14:55:34 EDT 2017


P.S. why would you not recommend ASR vs ASR-X? (There is a huge price
difference on eBay).

On Mar 28, 2017 12:07 PM, "Bruce Technical" <brucetechnical at gmail.com>
wrote:

> ***sending again with reply all and a minor change***
> Hi James,
>
> Not late at all. We are deciding this week to go with one ASR-x or
> multiple 7206vxr.
>
> 1- How would couple 7206vxr work together when our ISP is wanting to
> connect to LNS first and not Radius?
>
> 2- I am asked to pick single or multimode fiber. For 7206vxr which one
> should I pick and which is supported?
>
> 1000 customers is not bad for the price of a VXR.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> On Mar 6, 2017 4:39 AM, "James Bensley" <jwbensley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11 February 2017 at 20:03, Bruce Technical <brucetechnical at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > 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
>>
>>
>> Hi Bruce,
>>
>> I know this is a late response (I've been away and I'm catching upon
>> emails), but for the sake of the list archives it might help someone
>> else.
>>
>> As others have already mentioned the ASR1000 series will scale much
>> further and so it costs more. For the price of an ASR1001-X (I
>> wouldn't bother with non-X versions anymore) you can buy several
>> 7206VXRs with NPE-G2 but you won't have TAC support and scaling limits
>> (only 1G interfaces and stuff like NAT quickly chews up CPU).
>>
>> > Our Service Provider require LNS/LAC, L2TP, VRF, and Radius.
>>
>> This is what I would call the basic feature set of an LNS so both ASR
>> and 7200 series devices provide both functions as well as stuff like
>> QoS and NAT.
>>
>> We don't scale our 7200s above 1k sub's. We are an LLU provider but
>> when it comes to FTTC/VDSL we normally terminate that locally in the
>> PoP. So if we take a wholesale ADSL and VDSL connection into a central
>> LNS from a 3rd party supplier we have to be weary that the 7200's on
>> have 1G interfaces as we can sell bonded ADSL & VDSL over the 3rd
>> party L2TP tunnels so 1G == 1k sub's is about right in my head.
>>
>> Someone mention about the RADIUS challenges for ASR's, I have some
>> notes on example RADIUS configs here:
>> https://null.53bits.co.uk/index.php?page=avpairs
>>
>> If you look under: Cisco new style ("ip") VSAs
>>
>> ASRs need to use these style of VSAs on the virtual access interface.
>> Further down are the "older" style VSAs however both types are support
>> on the 7200s with a 15 IOS so initially it did catch us out when
>> migrating to ASRs but we just did a mass backed update in
>> Postgres/RADIUS so all accounts use the "newer" style and there all
>> users could be connected to either a 7200 series or ASR series LNS.
>>
>> If you're going to deploy an ASR maybe check out these notes I made on
>> initial limitations and issues we hit:
>> https://null.53bits.co.uk/index.php?page=asr-ios-xr-lns-config
>>
>> some of them are resolved now in newer XE versions and I haven't had
>> time to update the notes but it’s worth double checking in the Cisco
>> doc's for yourself. For example, we just dropped L2 port-channels in
>> exchange for multiple 1G layer 3 interfaces and/or 10G interfaces,
>> they caused too much trouble with QoS and NetFlow and SNMP monitoring.
>>
>> You had some queries regarding load balancing across multiple LNS
>> devices. Assuming you use RADIUS on your side to speak with your 3rd
>> party provider (I highly recommend this) you can return the IP of all
>> 3 LNS devices (or however many you have) back to the provider for any
>> user or realm and they should round-robin the session across those LNS
>> device IPs. You can also adjust the priorities in your RADIUS response
>> if you want to have un-equal load balancing. Any good 3rd party
>> provider should support this.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> James.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-bba/attachments/20170328/bb3818a4/attachment.html>


More information about the cisco-bba mailing list