Which is a good BRAS product, to handle 15000 subscribers sessions with full QoS & other features?
At 09:30 AM 11/12/2013, Dan White wrote:
On 12/10/13 19:51 +0530, Nilesh Kahar wrote:
Which is a good BRAS product, to handle 15000 subscribers sessions with full QoS & other features?
Juniper MX (480).
-- Dan White
I heard there were some issues with the LAC/LNS functionality on the MX series vs. JUNOSe on the E series. Is that still the case? --- Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4 tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409
On 13-12-11 10:10 AM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
At 09:30 AM 11/12/2013, Dan White wrote:
On 12/10/13 19:51 +0530, Nilesh Kahar wrote:
Which is a good BRAS product, to handle 15000 subscribers sessions with full QoS & other features?
Juniper MX (480).
-- Dan White
I heard there were some issues with the LAC/LNS functionality on the MX series vs. JUNOSe on the E series. Is that still the case?
Well I'm being told by my Juniper sales reps to stay away from LAC/LNS on the MX for now...so I have. Still rocking E320s -Gabe
On 12/11/13 10:10 -0500, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
At 09:30 AM 11/12/2013, Dan White wrote:
On 12/10/13 19:51 +0530, Nilesh Kahar wrote:
Which is a good BRAS product, to handle 15000 subscribers sessions with full QoS & other features?
Juniper MX (480).
I heard there were some issues with the LAC/LNS functionality on the MX series vs. JUNOSe on the E series. Is that still the case?
I have not used those features with the platform, so I can't confirm. The box has been very solid for us as a subscriber management platform for q-in-q termination. -- Dan White
MX480 works for me as LNS with Ericson Smartedge as LAC with more then 10K users it is very stable with 11.4x27 version The biggest limitations is that it is not possible to configure MTU for the subscriber interface ( lower the MTU to1492 for PPPOE subscribers ) Nitzan On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Dan White <dwhite@olp.net> wrote:
On 12/11/13 10:10 -0500, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
At 09:30 AM 11/12/2013, Dan White wrote:
On 12/10/13 19:51 +0530, Nilesh Kahar wrote:
Which is a good BRAS product, to handle 15000 subscribers sessions with full QoS & other features?
Juniper MX (480).
I heard there were some issues with the LAC/LNS functionality on the MX series vs. JUNOSe on the E series. Is that still the case?
I have not used those features with the platform, so I can't confirm. The box has been very solid for us as a subscriber management platform for q-in-q termination.
-- Dan White
We have deployed several MX480 for BRAS and had good success - definitely within the 11.4X27 release but also we have one box on 13.2 (nothing like living on the edge haha). I believe Juniper is starting to also recommend 12.3 for BRAS but would have to confirm that for sure. On MX80 we also have them running at smaller sites - historically had quite a few issues but lately been quite stable minus one bug we just encountered with PPPOE subscriber sessions not getting torn down correctly (PR is supposed to be resolved in new 11.4X release coming out Mon/Tues). None of these deployments at this point have l2tp tunnels coming in (such as wholesale from ILEC provider) but in early January we will have one in production (wholesale AGAS service via Bell Canada). Paul On 12/11/2013, 1:44 PM, "Nitzan Tzelniker" <nitzan.tzelniker@gmail.com> wrote:
MX480 works for me as LNS with Ericson Smartedge as LAC with more then 10K users it is very stable with 11.4x27 version The biggest limitations is that it is not possible to configure MTU for the subscriber interface ( lower the MTU to1492 for PPPOE subscribers )
Nitzan
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Dan White <dwhite@olp.net> wrote:
On 12/11/13 10:10 -0500, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
At 09:30 AM 11/12/2013, Dan White wrote:
On 12/10/13 19:51 +0530, Nilesh Kahar wrote:
Which is a good BRAS product, to handle 15000 subscribers sessions with full QoS & other features?
Juniper MX (480).
I heard there were some issues with the LAC/LNS functionality on the MX series vs. JUNOSe on the E series. Is that still the case?
I have not used those features with the platform, so I can't confirm. The box has been very solid for us as a subscriber management platform for q-in-q termination.
-- Dan White
participants (7)
-
Andrey Slastenov -
Clayton Zekelman -
Dan White -
Gabriel Blanchard -
Nilesh Kahar -
Nitzan Tzelniker -
Paul Stewart