. Thank you.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] Im Auftrag
von Paul Stewart
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Oktober 2013 20:57
An: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Betreff: Re: [j-nsp] Junos BNG PPPoE inside a VPLS
Has anyone configured this up
, September 26, 2013 11:40 PM
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Junos BNG PPPoE inside a VPLS
The reason for the VPLS use is that we have multiple BNG nodes that load
share the PPPoE sessions. And to mitigate single points of failure.
I believe Juniper might just be looking
I've seen a similar scenario.
Yes, I guess it's up to client's machine which PADO to use. Typically host
machine answers to the first PADO it gets.
It could be assumed that the load would be split between two redundant NAS
boxes as the least loaded NAS is gonna serve clients first (I mean it
] On Behalf Of
Terebizh, Evgeny
Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013 5:34 PM
To: Paul Stewart; William Jackson
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Junos BNG PPPoE inside a VPLS
I've seen a similar scenario.
Yes, I guess it's up to client's machine which PADO to use. Typically host
...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf
Of Terebizh, Evgeny
Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013 5:34 PM
To: Paul Stewart; William Jackson
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Junos BNG PPPoE inside a VPLS
I've seen a similar scenario.
Yes, I guess it's up to client's machine which PADO to use
ET It's not that bad comparing to IPoE model. At least you got PPP
keepalives, so it won't take a long time for a CPE to re-establish
internet connectivity through terminating existing session and creating a
new one. As I recall, In IPoE scenario CPE will keep existing session up
for 75% of dhcp
ET It's not that bad comparing to IPoE model. At least you got PPP
keepalives, so it won't take a long time for a CPE to re-establish
internet connectivity through terminating existing session and creating a
new one. As I recall, In IPoE scenario CPE will keep existing session up
for 75% of dhcp
The reason for the VPLS use is that we have multiple BNG nodes that load share
the PPPoE sessions. And to mitigate single points of failure.
I believe Juniper might just be looking into this scenario as well.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list
I'm curious on the load sharing you mentioned here...
So you have a VPLS path from DSLAM going to two different BNG nodes at the
same time? How does the PPPOE session setup work - first one to answer?
(presuming you are referring to PPPOE)
Love to hear more about this as we have talked about
On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:27:48 AM Graham Brown
wrote:
I've run into a very strange bug on the MX where PPP
through a VPLS results in the packets being mangled -
affected circuits have been migrated to L2VPNs. Although
a fix is provided in 12.3R4 which we are currently
testing -
On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 04:05:50 PM Adrien Desportes
wrote:
Hello William,
Before 13.2 you would have to use an external loop to
terminate the vpls on one side and the ppp on the other
side (as lt- interface does not support the proper
encapsulation for ppp).
Starting 13.2 (that
I've run into a very strange bug on the MX where PPP through a VPLS results
in the packets being mangled - affected circuits have been migrated to
L2VPNs. Although a fix is provided in 12.3R4 which we are currently testing
- I'll dig out the PR when I get into the office.
Graham Brown
Network
Please do share...
We are looking at launching an MX480 with RE1800's for BNG functions
(PPPOE). I'd really like to haul L2VPN's directly to the box and this
feature in 13.2 mentioned may be the solution...;)
Paul
On 2013-09-24 6:27 PM, Graham Brown juniper-...@grahambrown.info wrote:
I've
Gents
Theoretical question here:
I currently have a setup where I transport PPPoE frames between my xDSL boxes
and a centralised BNG.
I use one vlan tag per xDSL box aggregator box, so all the subs from a specific
box have the same vlan tag.
xDSL(vlan tagged Eth)--PE--MPLS
If I understand this correctly we are doing similar today...
Today, we have several POP's which have switches with VLAN trunks to
various equipment providing PPPOE (fixed wireless, xDSL etc). At those
switches, we send a trunk up to an MX router. Each of those VLAN's coming
into the MX is
Hello William,
Before 13.2 you would have to use an external loop to terminate the vpls on one
side and the ppp on the other side (as lt- interface does not support the
proper encapsulation for ppp).
Starting 13.2 (that was just released), if you use L2VPN rather than VPLS to
backhaul your
of William
Jackson [william.jack...@gibtele.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 4:39 PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] Junos BNG PPPoE inside a VPLS
Gents
Theoretical question here:
I currently have a setup where I transport PPPoE frames between my xDSL boxes
I don't think that William will require that feature though as he's
handing off the traffic just as a VLAN to the BNG (vs having the BNG
become a PE router) ? I understood the question to be whether or not
there's any issues transporting PPPOE traffic via an L2VPN or VPLS
instance .. Maybe I
18 matches
Mail list logo
