Hi Everyone,
We have around 5 POPs that need to terminate DSL tails, so require LNS -
historically, we have done this on 7200's, now with 7200 basically EOLd, we are
looking at the ASR1K's, but the broadband licensing on them is heinously
expensive...Just wondering what others are using as an
> On May 21, 2016, at 8:32 PM, CiscoNSP List wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
>
> We have around 5 POPs that need to terminate DSL tails, so require LNS -
> historically, we have done this on 7200's, now with 7200 basically EOLd, we
> are looking at the ASR1K's, but the broadband licensing on them
r the link/info.
From: Charles Sprickman
Sent: Sunday, 22 May 2016 10:48 AM
To: CiscoNSP List
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] LNS Alternatives
> On May 21, 2016, at 8:32 PM, CiscoNSP List wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
>
> We have around 5 POPs tha
I have used l2tpns in a cluster successfully in the past for this.
It's capable of doing 65k sessions per cluster if you throw enough
nodes at it.
The codebase is fairly stable and has been around for a long time
but isn't really maintained anymore.
We recently moved to the ASR1k platform for B
ealol, they
make it so simple :)
Cheers
From: Patrick Cole
Sent: Sunday, 22 May 2016 11:52 AM
To: CiscoNSP List
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] LNS Alternatives
I have used l2tpns in a cluster successfully in the past for this.
It's capa
> we are only doing ~2-3000 tailsbut to do the same on an ASR1Kwhoa!
> price is a killer.
At this level you only need two boxes with the correct broadband
licenses (not the 5 originally mentioned, unless you have some other
requirements relating to geo-diversity or backhaul connectivity).
d 1001 vs
the 1001-X series?(From your e-mail, sounds like there is?)
Thanks very much for your notes+linksIll be reading them tonight :)
From: cisco-nsp on behalf of James Bensley
Sent: Monday, 23 May 2016 6:32 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject:
> On 22/05/2016, at 12:48, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>
>
>> On May 21, 2016, at 8:32 PM, CiscoNSP List wrote:
>>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>>
>> We have around 5 POPs that need to terminate DSL tails, so require LNS -
>> historically, we have done this on 7200's, now with 7200 basically EOLd, we
On 23 May 2016 at 10:03, CiscoNSP List wrote:
> Cheers James - We need them all(5), as our POPs are geographically VERY far
> apart lol..majority of our customers are eth based, and use DSL as either
> redundant link, or where eth/fibre not available...unfortunately, they
> make a HUGE
I would also recommend to have a look at openl2tp.
Software LNS are a good solution if you only need basic features. If you
want to separate user in vrf/context it was a bit more complicated, as
you have to dedicate instance by vrf. but nothing impossible.
So the choice is as always, a relative
appreciated.
From: cisco-nsp on behalf of James Bensley
Sent: Monday, 23 May 2016 7:28 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] LNS Alternatives
On 23 May 2016 at 10:03, CiscoNSP List wrote:
> Cheers James - We need them all(5), as our POPs
Cheers Raphael - Wasnt aware of the vrf complexities.this would hurt us
significantly, as 70-80% of our DSL tails are in vrf's
From: cisco-nsp on behalf of raf
Sent: Monday, 23 May 2016 7:39 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [
(Resending to list from subscribed address -- got my puck nsp lists mixed
up :-))
On Monday, 23 May 2016, Dale Shaw wrote:
> Hi anonymous poster, and James,
>
> On Monday, 23 May 2016, James Bensley wrote:
>
>> Have you considered
>> Juniper too? You can do all the same stuff on MX's as far as
f raf
Sent: Monday, 23 May 2016 7:39 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] LNS Alternatives
I would also recommend to have a look at openl2tp.
Software LNS are a good solution if you only need basic features. If you
want to separate user in vrf/context it was a bit more complicate
Hi,
On Mon, 23 May 2016 at 21:04 CiscoNSP List
wrote:
> Cheers James - We need them all(5), as our POPs are geographically VERY
> far apart lol..majority of our customers are eth based, and use DSL as
> either redundant link, or where eth/fibre not
> available...unfortunately, they make
On 23/May/16 10:32, James Bensley wrote:
> At this level you only need two boxes with the correct broadband
> licenses (not the 5 originally mentioned, unless you have some other
> requirements relating to geo-diversity or backhaul connectivity).
>
> I recommend you advoice the ASR1002-X if poss
16 matches
Mail list logo
