Re: [j-nsp] MX80 as BRAS

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: junipe

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 as BRAS

[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 interes

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 as BRAS

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 conside

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 as BRAS

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

[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 ses