When trying out VMX there was a knob to enable HQOS. I believe it might
have been "flexible-queuing-mode". Will double when I can.
On Tuesday, 10 May 2016, Chris Kawchuk wrote:
> vMX Supporting HQoS Yet?
>
> That feature will be key for Subscriber management / bandwidth enforcement
> of subscrib
> > In the cisco world you can take CSR1K
>
> Yes, that is a good option as well, vBNG.
>
> I think CSR1000v is more mature than vMX in this case, as of today.
>
>
+1 for CSR1000v. We are using it for the same purpose. But the licensing is
a bit dorky. You can buy yearly 1G throughput license but t
vMX Supporting HQoS Yet?
That feature will be key for Subscriber management / bandwidth enforcement of
subscriber plans. I know -Q and -EQ definitely supporting it form day 1 in HW;
bit haven't had luck with vMX yet. (vMX still lacking feature parity last time
I checked... especially 'services'
On 9/May/16 21:55, Nitzan Tzelniker wrote:
> You can take vMX and do subscriber management on it (It is very new so be
> careful )
> It has license for 1K subscribers and it should be the best for you
>
> http://www.juniper.net/assets/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000522-en.pdf
>
> In the cisco wo
You can take vMX and do subscriber management on it (It is very new so be
careful )
It has license for 1K subscribers and it should be the best for you
http://www.juniper.net/assets/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000522-en.pdf
In the cisco world you can take CSR1K
Nitzan
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:
Jason,
I could be wrong, but I believe MX5 do B-RAS, using subscriber management.
my-user@my-router> show system license
License usage:
Licenses LicensesLicensesExpiry
Feature name usedinstalled needed
scale-subscribe
ot;
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2016 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] B-RAS services
On 9/May/16 21:03, Jason Warren via juniper-nsp wrote:
> Honestly 10G interfaces is not needed now nor anytime soon but would be nice
> to have the option down the road. The current router is acting as B-R
On 9/May/16 21:03, Jason Warren via juniper-nsp wrote:
> Honestly 10G interfaces is not needed now nor anytime soon but would be nice
> to have the option down the road. The current router is acting as B-RAS and a
> VLAN router on 3 interfaces. I'm only pushing 400-500MB per physical
> interf
f the underlying hardware.
From: Giuliano Medalha
To: Jason Warren
Cc: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net"
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2016 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] B-RAS services
Would be better to buy MX104 instead of MX80.
Do you need 10G interfaces or not ?
If you need o
On 9/May/16 20:55, Giuliano Medalha wrote:
> Would be better to buy MX104 instead of MX80.
I think neither.
I know a network struggling with the slow control plane on the MX104,
which is not that different from the MX80.
You're better off with an Intel-based control plane.
To be honest, if t
Would be better to buy MX104 instead of MX80.
Do you need 10G interfaces or not ?
If you need only 20 x 1G SFP is better option to use MX104 (MX5 option)
because of 4GB DRAM option.
Do not forget the to buy SSM license (for CoA) optional ok ?
Att,
Giuliano
Giuliano Cardozo Medalha
Systems
I have a Cisco 7206VXR that I am wanting to replace with a Juniper MX80
(purchased as an MX5) or similar. The main core function is just Ethernet
routing... but it also is acting as a B-RAS router for about 400 PPPoE
sessions. I know the license cost on the MX80 for subscriber services is close
12 matches
Mail list logo
