[167428] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BRAS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nitzan Tzelniker)
Wed Dec 11 13:44:52 2013
In-Reply-To: <20131211151530.GA6872@dan.olp.net>
From: Nitzan Tzelniker <nitzan.tzelniker@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:44:18 +0200
To: Dan White <dwhite@olp.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
>
>
