[j-nsp] Juniper BRAS

[Ben Dale]

A timely discussion for sure:

MX80 - No LAC or LNS support [1] and none planned*
MX240, 480, 960 - LAC and LNS supported, MPCs only [1][2]
M120 (AS/AS2 & MS PICs) - LNS support only  [2]
M7i/10i (AS/AS2 & MS PICs) - LNS support only [2]

BRAS is one of those features that is actually getting better with each bleeding edge release (by better, I mean it starts to work) - after banging my head against the wall for a day trying to get static subscribers to go active with 11.2, I upgraded to 11.4R1 and everything just started working like magic.  I've just moved to 11.4R2 now and started testing again.

*Current feedback from our SE - would LOVE to hear otherwise
[1] http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos/topics/concept/subscriber-management-l2tp-overview.html
[2] http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.1/information-products/topic-collections/config-guide-services/config-guide-services.pdf

On 30/03/2012, at 2:30 AM, Paul Stewart wrote:

> If your SE is not aware of the software issues etc - feel free to reach out
> to me.... we've invested a lot of time recently dealing with MX subscriber
> PPPOE issues and worked with Juniper a lot on this.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mg at gw.ms [mailto:mg at gw.ms] On Behalf Of Matthias Brumm
> Sent: March-27-12 11:45 AM
> To: Paul Stewart
> Cc: Liam Murphy; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper BRAS
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I hope our SE will have the insight to provide us with such suggestions.
> 
> We will use some MX5 for core and border routers, but one will provide PPPoE
> in some time. So it is not a must thing now, and perhaps some new software
> releases will provide better service in this matter.
> 
> Matthias
> 
> Am 27. März 2012 17:40 schrieb Paul Stewart <paul at paulstewart.org>:
>> That's correct - if you have direct connectivity to the DSLAM's 
>> without the need to carry l2tp then you don't need the LNS functionality.
>> 
>> If you wanted to "forward" that traffic to another provider (wholesale 
>> it
>> out) then you might require LNS as a function as well.
>> 
>> It sounds like your usage is similar to our usage to date - we 
>> own/operate our own DSLAM's therefore it's just "native PPPOE" for us.
>> 
>> Be very careful on the software load you are running on the MX5 for 
>> this purpose - I would highly suggest working with your SE to find a 
>> stable and suitable software version.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mg at gw.ms [mailto:mg at gw.ms] On Behalf Of Matthias Brumm
>> Sent: March-27-12 11:08 AM
>> To: Paul Stewart
>> Cc: Liam Murphy; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper BRAS
>> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> We have just ordered some MX5 to have the opportunity to provide PPPoE 
>> for customers.
>> 
>> What exactly is the meaning of lacking LNS support? If I understand 
>> correctly LNS is the possibility to provide a tunnel endpoint for a 
>> L2TP tunnel, sent from a provider, for example a DSL provider. The
>> MX80(5) is capable of provide a PPPoE termination, if I have L2 access 
>> to the DSLAMs or access switches?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Matthias
>> 
>> Am 26. März 2012 14:23 schrieb Paul Stewart <paul at paulstewart.org>:
>>> I'm not up to speed on the MLPPP stuff but would look at
>>> MX240/MX480/MX960 platform for sure.  The MX80 can only handle about 
>>> 4k sessions and has no support for LNS yet I don't believe (coming 
>>> though
>> if I'm not mistaken).
>>> 
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Liam Murphy [mailto:Liam.Murphy at easynet.com]
>>> Sent: March-26-12 6:30 AM
>>> To: Paul Stewart; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Juniper BRAS
>>> 
>>> About 4000 sessions.
>>> I am just not sure if I can have MLPPPoLT2P
>>> 
>>> (i.e. up to 8 ppp sessions bundled inside a MLPPP session that 
>>> terminates on a Juniper that is acting as an LNS, with subscriber QoS).
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>>> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul 
>>> Stewart
>>> Sent: 23 March 2012 20:40
>>> To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper BRAS
>>> 
>>> What kind of capacity?  M/MX is only option outside of E/ERX series...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>>> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Liam Murphy
>>> Sent: March-23-12 1:22 PM
>>> To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: [j-nsp] Juniper BRAS
>>> 
>>> Which Juniper router (not E-Series) is best suited for a BRAS.
>>> (L2TP LNS with MLPPP)
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Liam
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>