[j-nsp] MX80 as BRAS

[Paul Stewart]

Yeah, I think if you're looking at 128k sessions I would definitely look
into MX240/480/960 with the proper cards etc.  Having said that, we haven't
dealt with anyone yet running it on the MX platforms with a substantial
number of sessions.... we deal with lots of folks who have ERX1440's
deployed though.

I don't believe there's any plans for the ERX1440 to go anywhere anytime
soon though - just the ERX310/7xx ... at least from official announcements
anyways to clarify. ;)

Cheers,

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gabriel Blanchard
Sent: August-18-11 3:00 PM
To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX80 as BRAS

considering that the ERX series is being decommissioned soon and 
"replaced" by the expensive E series I'm also very interested.

Somehow I doubt that the MX80s are as capable as the ERXes when it comes 
to BRAS stuff.

-Gabe

On 08/18/2011 02:49 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
> We are just heading down that road with a bunch of MX80's... if I recall
> there are 16k IFL's in the MX80 which (if vlan tags are present) we're
told
> means a max of 8k sessions (2 IFL's per subscriber).  Somewhere in some
> discussions with Juniper we understand that it's realistically 4-5K
though.
>
> The other thing is that it has no LNS functionality today we're told - for
> our needs on these projects that is fine as we're going "native PPPOE"
> directly off DSLAM aggregation points (Occam/Calix).
>
> I'd love to hear some feedback on this though too - we've just labbed up
the
> first box but have not passed any traffic on it yet and verify the
> information that's been told to us so far...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mauritz Lewies
> Sent: August-18-11 2:38 PM
> To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [j-nsp] MX80 as BRAS
>
> Hi
>
> We're looking at replacing some Cisco ASRs with tin that can handle more
> PPPoE sessions.
> I have experience on the M120, but that does not scale and the cost per
> subscriber is way too high.
>
> I was considering deploying 2 x MX80s (active + active), due to low
relative
> cost considering 128k sessions combined.
>
> Has anyone used them as BRAS devices with success?
>
> Mauritz Lewies
> email: mo at three6five.com
> mobile: +27 83 647 4901
> Skype Phone:  +27 11 08 365 02
> three6five network solutions
> www.three6five.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp