Testing is the key ;)
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthias Brumm Sent: 27 March 2012 16:45 To: Paul Stewart Cc: Liam Murphy; [email protected] Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper BRAS Hi! I hope our SE will have the insight to provide us with such suggestions. We will use some MX5 for core and border routers, but one will provide PPPoE in some time. So it is not a must thing now, and perhaps some new software releases will provide better service in this matter. Matthias Am 27. März 2012 17:40 schrieb Paul Stewart <[email protected]>: > That's correct - if you have direct connectivity to the DSLAM's > without the need to carry l2tp then you don't need the LNS functionality. > > If you wanted to "forward" that traffic to another provider (wholesale > it > out) then you might require LNS as a function as well. > > It sounds like your usage is similar to our usage to date - we > own/operate our own DSLAM's therefore it's just "native PPPOE" for us. > > Be very careful on the software load you are running on the MX5 for > this purpose - I would highly suggest working with your SE to find a > stable and suitable software version. > > Paul > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthias Brumm > Sent: March-27-12 11:08 AM > To: Paul Stewart > Cc: Liam Murphy; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper BRAS > > Hi! > > We have just ordered some MX5 to have the opportunity to provide PPPoE > for customers. > > What exactly is the meaning of lacking LNS support? If I understand > correctly LNS is the possibility to provide a tunnel endpoint for a > L2TP tunnel, sent from a provider, for example a DSL provider. The > MX80(5) is capable of provide a PPPoE termination, if I have L2 access > to the DSLAMs or access switches? > > Regards, > > Matthias > > Am 26. März 2012 14:23 schrieb Paul Stewart <[email protected]>: >> I'm not up to speed on the MLPPP stuff but would look at >> MX240/MX480/MX960 platform for sure. The MX80 can only handle about >> 4k sessions and has no support for LNS yet I don't believe (coming >> though > if I'm not mistaken). >> >> Paul >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Liam Murphy [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: March-26-12 6:30 AM >> To: Paul Stewart; [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Juniper BRAS >> >> About 4000 sessions. >> I am just not sure if I can have MLPPPoLT2P >> >> (i.e. up to 8 ppp sessions bundled inside a MLPPP session that >> terminates on a Juniper that is acting as an LNS, with subscriber QoS). >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul >> Stewart >> Sent: 23 March 2012 20:40 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper BRAS >> >> What kind of capacity? M/MX is only option outside of E/ERX series... >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Liam Murphy >> Sent: March-23-12 1:22 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [j-nsp] Juniper BRAS >> >> Which Juniper router (not E-Series) is best suited for a BRAS. >> (L2TP LNS with MLPPP) >> >> Regards >> >> Liam >> >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
