[c-nsp] Cisco ASR as BBRAS... ? (is this a sane solution)

[Frank Bulk]

Ah, so there's non-BBRAS traffic you need to push around -- then the ASR
makes more sense.

We're using RADIUS for those who need static IPs -- all others get it via
DHCP.  There's no difference in the VC creation, but what happens with those
who have a Framed-IP entry, they get that IP address assigned during the PPP
process.

Yes, VLAN translation support among Cisco's gear is mixed, at best.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Krüpl [mailto:peter at linkstate.dk] 
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:19 AM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ASR as BBRAS... ? (is this a sane solution)

Hi Frank,

The reason for choosing the ASR it that it also has to terminate some 
bigger access connections
delivered to us as OinQ ethernet, but thats plain stuff and is not a 
speciffic BBRAS function.

Just to clarify, are you using radius for DHCP subscribers or only for PPP ?

One last thing that came to my mind is juniper's abillity to hasve local 
xconnects/EoMPLS circuits,
so you can connect port a vlan x to port b vlan y, very usefull when 
providing point to point  L2
services, eg. when the access circuits are delivered on the same 
interface in different vlans.

Kind Regards,
Peter Krüpl


Frank Bulk wrote:
> The ASR1002 seems overkill for 2000 subs, but perhaps a certain feature or
> PPS is not supported on a 7200 platform.
>
> Yes, RADIUS can hand out a Framed-IP just fine.  We do it all the time.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Peter Krüpl
> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:11 AM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] Cisco ASR as BBRAS... ? (is this a sane solution)
>
> Hi Group,
>
> I am currently considdering to replace a couple of juniper ERX310's,
> with cisco ASR1002's. The junipers, are doing PPPoE termination for
> both OinQ vlans and ATM pvc's and also DHCP for some subscribers.
> The ATM part will remain on the juniper routers, as this will be
> decomissioned in the near future.
>
> We have approx. 1000 subscribers on each ERX right now, and that
> stays the same for the ASR's. Maybe 2000 subscribers per box, in
> 2 years time.
>
> So the task for the ASR's is to terminate QinQ and provide PPPoE
> or DHCP servcies to each subscriber in order to provide them with
> internet access. The ASR should also be a part of our MPLS network,
> that contains Cat6500/Sup720 and Cat7600/Rsp720 boxes. As we have
> some connections terminated into different VRF's, but in that case the  
> service
> is static confiured on the routers, so no DHCP, PPP or other stuff  
> just plain IP.
>
> It is also a reuirement that it is possible to build EoMPLS circuits  
> from either
> a single or double tagged vlan on the ASR to a vlan subinterface on a
> Cat6500/7600.
>
> The juniper routers today provide the DHCP service via RADIUS,
> has cisco something simillar ? You can get lot's of radius servers  
> that use
> a database as their backend, but no decent DHCP server. This makes
> subscriber  provisioning harder to do on the fly. So it would be a shame
> to loose this feature. All of our subscribers have static IP's.
>
> I have made the following shopping list:
> ASR1002- 5G/K9 ASR1002 w/ESP 5G,AESK9,4GB DRAM
> FLASR1- BB- RTU Broadband Right To Use Feature Lic for ASR1000 Series
> FLASR1- BB- 4K Broadband 4K Sessions Feature Lic for ASR1000 Series
> SASR1R1- AIS-K9 -21SR Cisco ASR 1000 Series RP1 ADVANCED IP SERVICES
> SPA- 8X1GE- V2 Cisco 8 Port Gigabit Ethernet Shared Port Adapter
>
> Would this solution workout fine ?
> Any alternatives.... ?
>
> Kind Regards,
> Peter Krüpl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
>