Re: BRAS

[Paul Stewart <paul () paulstewart org>]

We have deployed several MX480 for BRAS and had good success - definitely
within the 11.4X27 release but also we have one box on 13.2 (nothing like
living on the edge haha).  I believe Juniper is starting to also recommend
12.3 for BRAS but would have to confirm that for sure.

On MX80 we also have them running at smaller sites - historically had
quite a few issues but lately been quite stable minus one bug we just
encountered with PPPOE subscriber sessions not getting torn down correctly
(PR is supposed to be resolved in new 11.4X release coming out Mon/Tues).

None of these deployments at this point have l2tp tunnels coming in (such
as wholesale from ILEC provider) but in early January we will have one in
production (wholesale AGAS service via Bell Canada).

Paul


On 12/11/2013, 1:44 PM, "Nitzan Tzelniker" <nitzan.tzelniker () gmail com>
wrote:

> MX480 works for me as LNS with Ericson Smartedge as LAC with more then 10K
> users
> it is very stable with 11.4x27 version
> The biggest limitations is that it is not possible to configure MTU for
> the
> subscriber interface  ( lower the MTU to1492 for PPPOE subscribers )
>
> Nitzan
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Dan White <dwhite () olp net> wrote:
>
> > On 12/11/13 10:10 -0500, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
> >
> > > At 09:30 AM 11/12/2013, Dan White wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 12/10/13 19:51 +0530, Nilesh Kahar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Which is a good BRAS product, to handle 15000 subscribers sessions
> > > > > with
> > > > > full QoS & other features?
> > > >
> > > > Juniper MX (480).
> > >
> > > I heard there were some issues with the LAC/LNS functionality on the MX
> > > series vs. JUNOSe on the E series.  Is that still the case?
> >
> > I have not used those features with the platform, so I can't confirm.
> > The
> > box has been very solid for us as a subscriber management platform for
> > q-in-q termination.
> >
> > --
> > Dan White