Thanks James - Apologies for the non-inline replies, Im on phone, via Hotmail...lol, makes it difficult :)
Ill have another chat to Cisco, see what they can do for us....re Juniper, yes, I did look at them....my only issue is that we are only a small company, with all Cisco engineers...i.e. zero Juniper in-house knowledge...but Ill investigate further...if its a far cheaper option (And feature parity is equal or better), then Id be crazy not too....will be a difficult learning experience for us all(Mainly due to time constraints), but potentially worth it :) Yes indeed re radius attributes etc....was scratching my head for a while wondering why the hell a basic dsl service wouldnt auth!...some mind boggling changes by Cisco lol Thanks for the tip re QOS....will be doing a lot more testing in this area (As well as others!) Cheers for all your feedback+help....much appreciated. ________________________________________ From: cisco-nsp <[email protected]> on behalf of James Bensley <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 23 May 2016 7:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] LNS Alternatives On 23 May 2016 at 10:03, CiscoNSP List <[email protected]> wrote: > Cheers James - We need them all(5), as our POPs are geographically VERY far > apart lol......majority of our customers are eth based, and use DSL as either > redundant link, or where eth/fibre not available.......unfortunately, they > make a HUGE noise re latency(They are VERY latency conscious!) when we tried > a single LNS setup...i.e. All DSL tails terminating on the one LNS.....as an > example, 2 sites, 1 kilometre apart, latency was over 120m/sec..if we had an > LNS at that POP, latency would have been 30ish....hard pill to swallow, but > when the noisy customers are spending lots of $ with you, it's best to keep > them happy. Hmm in that case, I would either shout loudly at Cisco to get a better price, the ASR1001-X for say <1000 subscribers (assuming an even distribution between PoPs) is rather pricey. Have you considered Juniper too? You can do all the same stuff on MX's as far as I know, we have MX480's running as LNS too. Just a thought. > Regarding features and the "X" range...Ive played a bit now with our Lab > 1006, and yes, definitely some "challenging"(insane!) differences between > them and the 7200....geez the stupid no compression thing, some reply > attributes cause the ASR to use full VAI, which causes it to fail also, qos > pre-classify under virt template also causes ASR to use full VAI(Again, > causes it to fail).....damn, Cisco loved making the transition from 7200->ASR > an easy one lol......Are there even more things I need to be aware of with > the old 1001 vs the 1001-X series?(From your e-mail, sounds like there is?) Yes the change in RADIUS attributes and using sub-interfaces et al. is very annoying. We have managed to work around pretty much everything however it was additional head ache caused by Cisco, the reasons for which are (mostly) unknown to us. They do work AS LNS/BNG, the ASR1000 series devices, I just cast stress how much testing you must do first. We were having issues were the couldn't make QoS changes without rebooting the box, so we needed to get our configs exactly right and fully testd before any traffic goes live. Cheers, James. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
