A timely discussion for sure: MX80 - No LAC or LNS support [1] and none planned* MX240, 480, 960 - LAC and LNS supported, MPCs only [1][2] M120 (AS/AS2 & MS PICs) - LNS support only [2] M7i/10i (AS/AS2 & MS PICs) - LNS support only [2]
BRAS is one of those features that is actually getting better with each bleeding edge release (by better, I mean it starts to work) - after banging my head against the wall for a day trying to get static subscribers to go active with 11.2, I upgraded to 11.4R1 and everything just started working like magic. I've just moved to 11.4R2 now and started testing again. *Current feedback from our SE - would LOVE to hear otherwise [1] http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos/topics/concept/subscriber-management-l2tp-overview.html [2] http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.1/information-products/topic-collections/config-guide-services/config-guide-services.pdf On 30/03/2012, at 2:30 AM, Paul Stewart wrote: > If your SE is not aware of the software issues etc - feel free to reach out > to me.... we've invested a lot of time recently dealing with MX subscriber > PPPOE issues and worked with Juniper a lot on this. > > Paul > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthias Brumm > Sent: March-27-12 11:45 AM > 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 > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
