I've confirmed you can in software on an X release for MX5-80:
https://www.juniper.net/alerts/viewalert.jsp?actionBtn=Search&txtAlertNumber=PSN-2012-10-730&viewmode=view
http://forums.juniper.net/t5/Routing/MX-As-LNS-L2tp-network-Server/m-p/175383#M8415
http://www.mail-archive.com/juniper-nsp@puc
On 17/01/2013 12:02, Richard Halfpenny wrote:
>> I'm still awaiting confirmation from Juniper, Hardware.com, IMtech and
>> a few others. Some say it can,
>> mainly folks on the j-nsp list in the US and others say you need an
>> MX240 and an MPC. I think they have
>> a new software set bringing the
On 17/01/2013 11:42, Gavin Henry wrote:
> Thanks for all the replies off list (will reply), but one for on list below.
>
>> We did it the old fashioned way because you can get hold of the kit pretty
>> cheap, and like I say DSL is low value for us - didn't want to go crazy with
>> it. We'd have t
On 17/01/2013 07:58, Gavin Henry wrote:
> On 16 January 2013 23:44, Richard Halfpenny
> wrote:
>> On 16/01/2013 23:02, Charlie Boisseau wrote:
>>
>>> Also, while Juniper MX's are being discussed - we've just put our MX-80s
>>> into production, and they're brilliant. Looking forward to playing wit
Thanks for all the replies off list (will reply), but one for on list below.
> We did it the old fashioned way because you can get hold of the kit pretty
> cheap, and like I say DSL is low value for us - didn't want to go crazy with
> it. We'd have to be pushing big volumes to make the capex of a
James,
We've had the opposite experience. I've found Enta to be fairly
useless. I don't know when you set up with them, but several years
back when we did, we could only have one interconnect, they wouldn't
do fail over L2TP tunnel's for us, or even two as load balanced.
I have to say I got a lot
>> Can they handover anywhere or do they insist on THN as that is a BTW NAP too.
>
> Can hand over in Manchester IIRC ?
OK, cool. I do see LINX have a special offer for new signups which
provides 1/2 rack in THN if still available. Was looking at that but
very little power available there :-(
Sl
On 17 January 2013 10:34, Chris Russell wrote:
>
>> Can they handover anywhere or do they insist on THN as that is a BTW NAP too.
>
> Can hand over in Manchester IIRC ?
Telehouse North (London, Docklands)
Telecity Kilburn House (Manchester)
Telecity Harbour Exchange 8/9 (London, Docklands)
> Can they handover anywhere or do they insist on THN as that is a BTW NAP too.
Can hand over in Manchester IIRC ?
Chris
website: www.knowledgeit.co.uk | blog: www.knowledgeit.co.uk/blog | twitter:
@KnowledgeITUK
Knowledge Limited, Company Registration: 1554385
Registered Office: New Century
On 17 January 2013 10:03, Gavin Henry wrote:
>>
>> price. For just starting up, I'd
>> rather grab an MX5, ASR1001.
>>
>
> That's what we're looking at as the MX5 is license restricted MX80.
>
> What are the commits like with TTB vs BTWBC?
>
> Can they handover anywhere or do they insist on THN as
> To be honest, BT WMBC is pretty good most of the time. We do have to
> keep on top of them as they will occasionally have some congestion at a
> BRAS or Exchange level, but they are not bad at sorting that these days.
> The main thing is that congestion is usually treated as a fault and not
> b
>
> price. For just starting up, I'd
> rather grab an MX5, ASR1001.
>
That's what we're looking at as the MX5 is license restricted MX80.
What are the commits like with TTB vs BTWBC?
Can they handover anywhere or do they insist on THN as that is a BTW NAP too.
Thanks.
On 16 January 2013 23:02, Charlie Boisseau wrote:
> Guys,
> We ended up going with Enta...
> I highly recommend Enta. We've had a very good experience with them (well
> the sales guys are useless, but techies are great).
Interesting post Charlie,
We've had the opposite experience. I've found Ent
On 16/01/13 22:57, Gavin Henry wrote:
>
> What is everyones experience with the different telcos from the point if
> view of QoS from the exchange to your handover? Does it vary greatly?
To be honest, BT WMBC is pretty good most of the time. We do have to
keep on top of them as they will occasio
On 16 January 2013 23:44, Richard Halfpenny
wrote:
> On 16/01/2013 23:02, Charlie Boisseau wrote:
>
>> Also, while Juniper MX's are being discussed - we've just put our MX-80s
>> into production, and they're brilliant. Looking forward to playing with
>> them properly now.
>
> I usually have a har
On 16/01/2013 23:02, Charlie Boisseau wrote:
> Also, while Juniper MX's are being discussed - we've just put our MX-80s
> into production, and they're brilliant. Looking forward to playing with
> them properly now.
I usually have a hard-on for most things Juniper but these days i'm
starting to f
On 16 Jan 2013, at 23:57, Gavin Henry wrote:
> Does anyone work with telcos abroad that backhaul this type of edge to the UK?
I've done M2M hand-off projects with Optus Australia (semi-proprietary Cisco
IPsec setup) and T-Mobile Austria (good old L2TP) on behalf of clients. Optus
was a mess, no
Guys,
I thought I'd chime in here to tell our story, since we recently added xDSL
into our network. We studied all the options carefully, but conceded that we
didn't want to be in a situation where we couldn't supply a service to remote
customers who only had ADSL Max (IPSC) available. DSL is
Thanks Neil. I'll check that out too.
What is everyones experience with the different telcos from the point if view
of QoS from the exchange to your handover? Does it vary greatly?
I wonder how much that would change when dealing with a wholesale aggregator.
Does anyone work with telcos abroa
every vendors has a weakness and a pro, in my view ALU easily are superior in
real life situations. Having a look at the hardware and deep look at the code
ALU win in my view, but you spend your money and take your choices. Take a look
at 7950XRS for a platform that truly performs and Cisco have
On 16/01/2013 15:56, Ben Ward wrote:
> Since I am getting a very good price on Juniper MX and nobody's said
> "forget PPPoE, it's old hat" [Correction: Neil has just dropped that in]
> the question I have next is about national coverage. I imagine WBC are
> the only ones capable of coverage in spa
Please excuse typo's/brevity. Sent from my aql iPhone.
On 16 Jan 2013, at 16:53, Adrian Kennard wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2013, at 16:48, Jon Morby wrote:
>
>> FidoNet, A&A and I believe Fluidata all offer an M2M service …. and I
>> believe we all get it from AQL
>
> Indeed, and I don't think Ada
On 16 Jan 2013, at 16:48, Jon Morby wrote:
> FidoNet, A&A and I believe Fluidata all offer an M2M service …. and I believe
> we all get it from AQL
Indeed, and I don't think Adam makes any secret of the fact that he hands the
L2TP over using a FireBrick at his end.
FidoNet, A&A and I believe Fluidata all offer an M2M service …. and I believe
we all get it from AQL
Jon
On 16 Jan 2013, at 16:36, Ronan Mullally wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Ben Ward wrote:
>
>> Regarding M2M, I see AQL & A&A can offer an LNS termination for mobile
>> data, bu
On 2013/01/16 16:36, Ronan Mullally wrote:
> [1] Bastardised as only mobile operators can do - there was a PPP proxy
> sitting somewhere in the middle which didn't do things like IPv6.
The PPP session you make when you connect a computer to a 3G modem/phone
is with the modem/phone itself, it isn't
Hi Ben,
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Ben Ward wrote:
> Regarding M2M, I see AQL & A&A can offer an LNS termination for mobile
> data, but I see no mention of PPPoX - is something else used?
I think it depends on the mobile operator. I spent a lot of time a couple
of years ago working with wholesale DSL
On 16 January 2013 16:21, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Thomas - I'll reach out to my ALU contacts and comeback with some options.
>
> Neil
>
> On 16/01/2013 16:03, "Thomas Mangin"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Alcatel Lucent 7750
> >
> >Any recommendation to where to go to get product information from Alcatel
>
Thomas - I'll reach out to my ALU contacts and comeback with some options.
Neil
On 16/01/2013 16:03, "Thomas Mangin"
wrote:
>
>> Alcatel Lucent 7750
>
>Any recommendation to where to go to get product information from Alcatel
>... They do not seem very geared for dealing with "small shops".
>
>
On 16/01/2013 15:56, "Ben Ward"
mailto:b...@crouchingbadger.com>> wrote:
Thanks to all for the excellent responses. I can continue this discussion on
the list and add any relevant findings from the meeting.
Since I am getting a very good price on Juniper MX and nobody's said "forget
PPPoE, it'
> Since I am getting a very good price on Juniper MX and nobody's said "forget
> PPPoE, it's old hat" [Correction: Neil has just dropped that in] the
> question I have next is about national coverage. I imagine WBC are the only
> ones capable of coverage in sparsely populated areas whilst still off
On 16/01/13 15:47, Aled Morris wrote:
>
>
> Does the Firebrick support a feature like Cisco's VRFs for separating
> customer connections and building VPNs at layer 2?
Yes that sory of thing - easy to separate customers and wholesale
customers using routing at L3, and L2TP relays as needed.
> Al
> Alcatel Lucent 7750
Any recommendation to where to go to get product information from Alcatel ...
They do not seem very geared for dealing with "small shops".
Thomas
On 16/01/13 15:48, Nat Morris wrote:
>...
> Can it drop users into VRFs with different OSPF/BGP instances per VRF
> via a radius attribute?
>
> A requirement for MPLS providers.
Yes, but BGP now.
It will have OSPF soon - very nearly finished that... If it is a
requirement we'll finish it.
On 16/01/2013 15:48, "Nat Morris" wrote:
>
>Can it drop users into VRFs with different OSPF/BGP instances per VRF
>via a radius attribute?
>
>A requirement for MPLS providers.
Not if it doesn't support OSPF ;) or ISIS for that matter (the latter
being far more important!).
Neil.
Thanks to all for the excellent responses. I can continue this discussion
on the list and add any relevant findings from the meeting.
Since I am getting a very good price on Juniper MX and nobody's said
"forget PPPoE, it's old hat" [Correction: Neil has just dropped that in]
the question I have ne
On 16/01/2013 15:29, "Gavin Henry" wrote:
>We're currently looking at the ASR1001/2 for this at the moment but
>are also speaking to Juniper as on the MX5-80 range they are rolling
>out LNS and L2TP but it's quite early compared to the ASK1001/2.
>Depends if you want Cisco on the edge for that,
> A Cisco 2911 (plus SL-29-DATA-K9 license) and a *nix box with FreeRADIUS
> will get you going but do you have an idea of how much traffic / total
> number of sessions?
Likewise on the 3925E (here) - works well arbeit the majority of our DSL
connections are for backup purposes. Freeradius inte
On 16 January 2013 15:35, Adrian Kennard wrote:
> On 16/01/13 15:29, Gavin Henry wrote:
>> We're currently looking at the ASR1001/2 for this at the moment but
>> are also speaking to Juniper as on the MX5-80 range they are rolling
>> out LNS and L2TP but it's quite early compared to the ASK1001/2.
On 16 January 2013 15:35, Adrian Kennard wrote:
> Key features include seamless multiple line IP level bonding; easy to
> deploy IPv6 with DHCPv6 delegations tested with various IPv6 DSL
> routers; and, of course, industry leading line monitoring with LCP per
> line per second loss/latency/throug
We used to use Linux and L2TPNS … which worked well initially
We now only use FireBricks and on the whole they're very good (if not slightly
expensive for the 6000 model)
It depends on how many tails you want to connect … a fully loaded FB2700 costs
£750 and will do the job well for up to 200 o
On 16/01/13 15:29, Gavin Henry wrote:
> We're currently looking at the ASR1001/2 for this at the moment but
> are also speaking to Juniper as on the MX5-80 range they are rolling
> out LNS and L2TP but it's quite early compared to the ASK1001/2.
> Depends if you want Cisco on the edge for that, but
> For example, the 2911's IDB (interface descriptor block) limit of 1400
> will affect scale but I can't imagine getting upto anything over a few
> hundred sessions on that size of box. You're more likely to top the CPU
> out with traffic or service-policy shapers before hitting session
> limits.
On 15/01/2013 18:09, Ben Ward wrote:
> I've been doing some research on the benefits of an LNS and would
> appreciate some advice if anyone has 20 minutes to spare on Thursday. I
> see there was the AQL workshop back in 2011, so hopefully people can
> remember that far back. Mostly I'm looking at
On 15 January 2013 18:09, Ben Ward wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Looking forward to seeing people on Thursday at the meeting.
>
> I've been doing some research on the benefits of an LNS and would appreciate
> some advice if anyone has 20 minutes to spare on Thursday. I see there was
> the AQL workshop back
On 15 Jan 2013, at 20:25, Dr Adam Beaumont wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 15 Jan 2013, at 18:09, Ben Ward wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Looking forward to seeing people on Thursday at the meeting.
>>
>> I've been doing some research on the benefits of an LNS and would appreciate
>> some advice if anyo
On 15 Jan 2013, at 18:09, Ben Ward wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Looking forward to seeing people on Thursday at the meeting.
>
> I've been doing some research on the benefits of an LNS and would appreciate
> some advice if anyone has 20 minutes to spare on Thursday. I see there was
> the AQL work
Hi all,
Looking forward to seeing people on Thursday at the meeting.
I've been doing some research on the benefits of an LNS and would
appreciate some advice if anyone has 20 minutes to spare on Thursday. I see
there was the AQL workshop back in 2011, so hopefully people can remember
that far bac
47 matches
Mail list logo
