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-boun...@puck.nether.net > [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gabriel Blanchard > Sent: August-18-11 3:00 PM > To: juniper-nsp@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-boun...@puck.nether.net >> [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mauritz Lewies >> Sent: August-18-11 2:38 PM >> To: juniper-nsp@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: m...@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@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp Mauritz Lewies email: m...@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@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
