[j-nsp] MX80 as BRAS

[Mauritz Lewies]

Thanks for all the feedback

With no LNS offering and the cost of the MX240 with MPC's it seems the ASRs are going have to stay for a while still...
Until the session count actually either justify the ERX or the MX (and it starts supporting LNS sufficiently)... Was hoping for a proper HW based platform between (24k and 128k sessions)...


On 19 Aug 2011, at 2:32 AM, Paul Stewart wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

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