[cisco-nas] Shaping/Policing PPPoE sessions on Cisco 10008

Richie, Dave J drichie at decommunications.com
Mon Mar 17 10:56:55 EDT 2008


A little history......currently, we are using UBR's to shape our current
PPPoATM DSL subscribers.  Depending on their VPI, the customers get
applied to a VC-Class where the UBR speed is set.  (256kb, 1.5mb, 5mb,
etc.)  We only shape/police the downstream while the DSLAM
shapes/polices the upstream.
 
Now for the future........we are in the process of implementing Calix
DSLAMs that will be connected via Ethernet rings to Cisco 7609's.  There
we will hand off the traffic via Layer-2 vlans to our Cisco 10008 DSL
Aggregator for PPPoE termination.  We were trying to figure out the best
way to shape/police the customers for their purchased bandwidth.  Our
Cisco Sales Engineer said that we can create service-policies on the
10008 and use a radius attribute to point those customers to those
service policies.  I'd like to know if this is the best option and how
well it scales for 1000's of customers.  We don't want to shoot
ourselves in the foot by using a method that will start to tax the CPU
on our router and cause degradation of service to others.
 
It would be great to hear what other Service Providers are doing to
shape/police their customers download and upload speeds.
 
Regards,
-Dave R.

**DISCLAIMER
This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail message. The contents do not represent the opinion of D&E except to the extent that it relates to their official business.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nas/attachments/20080317/7ae226a0/attachment.html 


More information about the cisco-nas mailing list