Scaling on the MX80 is supposed to be 16,000 per chassis, 8,000 per MIC and 4,000 per PIC and a 8,000 limit on PPPoE sessions.
In order to max out you need 2 MICs loaded with at least 1 port per PIC active for subscriber term at up to 4k per. Also, vlan units and PPPoE units both count as a sub... So if doing uniq stacked tag combo per sub w/ PPPoE you are using a unit at both the vlan and pppoe level per sub and when you hit the 8k limit you are also out of interfaces. I have not personally seen a MX80 with that many active subs yet, will have to see if things run out of juice before the hard limits are reached. On 11/12/13 7:52 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > Does anyone know how many users the MX104 will be able to handle though? > > The 4000 user limit on the MX80 was quite low. > > Does the MX104 have the services port on the back like the MX80? I'm > waiting for the CGN Services card which was supposed to be released around > now. > > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > [email protected] ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ben Dale <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That and I think a lot of the BRAS "migration" functionality (LNS/LAC etc) >> was late to the party after being told it wasn't going to happen for >> anything lower than the 240. >> >> On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower density >>> subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find it's >>> niche as a BRAS. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the >>>> MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS >> (per-unit >>>> scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are >>>> Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that the >>>> astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX routers >> is >>>> worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. >>>> >>>> -evt >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On >>>> Behalf Of >>>>> joel jaeggli >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM >>>>> To: Saku Ytti >>>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On (2013-11-12 20:14 +0000), Tom Storey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that >>>>>>> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, >>>>>>> but it still seems ridiculous. >>>>>> >>>>>> The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite. >>>>>> >>>>>> The BOM on these boxes is nothing, I'm guessing less than 1kUSD. But >>>> the >>>>>> volume you can sell them also is very very small, so the margins need >>>> to >>>>> be >>>>>> very high to be able to design and support them. >>>>>> Licensing allows you to sell to larger group of people, people who >>>>> normally >>>>>> would buy smaller/inferior box, now can afford it, which in turn >>>> allows >>>>> you >>>>>> to reduce your margins, making you more competitive. >>>>>> >>>>>> I actually like it. I wish vendors like Agilent/Ixia, Spirent would >>>> sell >>>>>> test-kit with some sort of 'per hours used' license. Lot of SPs have >>>> need >>>>> for >>>>>> proper testing kit, but only will need them very irregularly. And >>>> renting >>>>> is >>>>>> always such a chore. It's same thing there, BOM is nothing, but volume >>>> is >>>>> even >>>>>> lower, so prices are ridiculously high, consequently proper testing is >>>>> very >>>>>> rarely done by other than telco size SPs. >>>>> >>>>> It's one of those things where you work with account team. if the >>>> commercial >>>>> terms don't work out for most potential buyers, then the product won't >> be >>>>> successful and either things will change or they won't. >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ++ytti >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Bill Blackford >>> >>> Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges..... >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher E. Brown <[email protected]> desk (907) 550-8393 cell (907) 632-8492 IP Engineer - ACS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
