We have pushed MX80 very hard with PPPOE and found the 4k number to be realistic. Of course it depends on what other features you are turning on as well.
I worked with Juniper team to perform POC’s and load testing with “real life environments” and at the end of the testing (and based on what I see with several of them deployed at customers) the 4k number is “safe”. The MX104 most likely won’t be able to handle any more subscribers than 4k neither - but have not seen any POC”s or deployments yet on that hardware. Paul On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:46 AM, Christopher E. Brown <chris.br...@acsalaska.net> wrote: > > 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 >> ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; 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 <bd...@comlinx.com.au> 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 <bblackf...@gmail.com> 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 <e...@atlantech.net> >>> 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:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On >>>>> Behalf Of >>>>>> joel jaeggli >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM >>>>>> To: Saku Ytti >>>>>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>>>>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> 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 juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Bill Blackford >>>> >>>> Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges..... >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Christopher E. Brown <chris.br...@acsalaska.net> desk (907) 550-8393 > cell (907) 632-8492 > IP Engineer - ACS > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
