Mailing List Archive

Hello Paul,



Which model of the Juniper ERX are you referring to? It makes a big
difference if you're talking about the E320 or the E120. The E320 would be
in the same class as the Cisco 10008 series and that's a different
comparison to make.



I would be eager to hear from people that used both of these platforms and
have comparisons to make.



Adrian



From: cisco-nas-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nas-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 10:38 AM
To: cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-nas] Cisco vs Juniper



This is probably a common question - looking for real-world feedback if
possible.



Cisco 7206VXR or Juniper ERX? This is for ADSL (PPPOE) services .. Which
one do you like better and why? Currently we run several 7206VXR's.. NPE-1G
and 2G



Thanks,



Paul

Hi Adrian....



While my question was somewhat "generic" on models I would be thinking
of the 320 probably. We have 7206VXR's and I'm debating from the
following:



Keep stacking up more 7206VXR's (which has a pro/con)

Move towards 10008 platform

Move towards Juniper ERX



Same as you, would love to hear real-world feedback from people who have
used both side by side pretty much....



Thanks,



Paul





From: cisco-nas-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nas-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Adrian
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:57 AM
To: 'Paul Stewart'; cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-nas] Cisco vs Juniper



Hello Paul,



Which model of the Juniper ERX are you referring to? It makes a big
difference if you're talking about the E320 or the E120. The E320 would
be in the same class as the Cisco 10008 series and that's a different
comparison to make.



I would be eager to hear from people that used both of these platforms
and have comparisons to make.



Adrian



From: cisco-nas-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nas-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 10:38 AM
To: cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-nas] Cisco vs Juniper



This is probably a common question - looking for real-world feedback if
possible...



Cisco 7206VXR or Juniper ERX? This is for ADSL (PPPOE) services ....
Which one do you like better and why? Currently we run several
7206VXR's.... NPE-1G and 2G



Thanks,



Paul

Paul,

As you consider which gear to buy, perhaps you may want to consider why
you're buying it in the first place. Does AGAS sound familiar? Bell's
solution does not scale well, and we're all going to be affected by it.
That said, your company, my company and Adrian's company are large
enough to justify the expense of a 10000 series or ERX. That's a
problem for a number of the smaller independents in the market.

As for which platform, my two cents: I watched Radiant test out a 1400
series ERX and a 10000 series Cisco, they ended up with the Cisco.
Looking at my price list, I can get two fully redundant 10000/PRE-3's
with multiple GigE interfaces for the same price as an equivalent ERX.
I'm also busy enough that a Cisco to Juniper migration is a PITA,
therefore the ERX must offer something that is a "can't live without"
option. Sure, they have great queuing abilities, but the 10000 series
does too.

I prefer to pick the poison I know.

-- Stephen
_______________________________________________
cisco-nas mailing list
cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nas

That's very good information Stephen and as always appreciate your
feedback. We're not against stacking 7206VXR's neither but there's
something to be said about high density as well.

Our 7206VXR's seem to only handle roughly 2-3000 active subscribers
where we would like to see 4000 at least (half of Cisco's marketing
number)....

Anyways, we went through this a couple of years ago too when looking at
Redback gear. We had migrated out of the Redback platforms to Cisco and
then a few years later ended up looking at them again (more to see
what's new and better etc.)... stuck with Cisco.

As you also point out, we have tech staff that know Cisco and are used
to the way Cisco operates (right or wrong)...;)

Cheers!

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Fulton [mailto:sf@lists.esoteric.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:00 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: Adrian; cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-nas] Cisco vs Juniper

Paul,

As you consider which gear to buy, perhaps you may want to consider why
you're buying it in the first place. Does AGAS sound familiar? Bell's
solution does not scale well, and we're all going to be affected by it.
That said, your company, my company and Adrian's company are large
enough to justify the expense of a 10000 series or ERX. That's a
problem for a number of the smaller independents in the market.

As for which platform, my two cents: I watched Radiant test out a 1400
series ERX and a 10000 series Cisco, they ended up with the Cisco.
Looking at my price list, I can get two fully redundant 10000/PRE-3's
with multiple GigE interfaces for the same price as an equivalent ERX.
I'm also busy enough that a Cisco to Juniper migration is a PITA,
therefore the ERX must offer something that is a "can't live without"
option. Sure, they have great queuing abilities, but the 10000 series
does too.

I prefer to pick the poison I know.

-- Stephen




----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
_______________________________________________
cisco-nas mailing list
cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nas

Paul,

Thanks, and cheers! :)

Your numbers are accurate based on my own observations. The NPE-G1
gear, tweaked, seems to only handle a maximum of 3k. I've seen that
number fluctuate depending on the amount of bandwidth traversing the
individual LNS, whether multilink was enabled, number of VRF's and
associated routing instances, and the number of concurrent login attempts.

We're stacking as well, but I'll admit the 10000 series has some appeal
beyond the simple arithmetic of number of subscribers per LNS cluster
per AGAS circuit.

-- Stephen
_______________________________________________
cisco-nas mailing list
cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nas

> That's very good information Stephen and as always appreciate your
> feedback. We're not against stacking 7206VXR's neither but there's
> something to be said about high density as well.
>
> Our 7206VXR's seem to only handle roughly 2-3000 active subscribers
> where we would like to see 4000 at least (half of Cisco's marketing
> number)....
>
> Anyways, we went through this a couple of years ago too when looking at
> Redback gear. We had migrated out of the Redback platforms to Cisco and
> then a few years later ended up looking at them again (more to see
> what's new and better etc.)... stuck with Cisco.
>
> As you also point out, we have tech staff that know Cisco and are used
> to the way Cisco operates (right or wrong)...;)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Paul

The ISP I work for has begun migrating away from multitudes of 7200's
towards 10000 series.

Where we might have had several 7200's terminating a couple of thousand
sessions each, we are now using two 10008's (for redundancy) each handling
(at present) upwards of 10,000 sessions each, in a mix of PPPoE and L2TP.

Cisco claims ~60,000 sessions per 10008, even if you dont actually reach
that figure, its probably nicer to have a couple of 10008 *chassis'* than
a couple of *racks* full of 7200's.

_______________________________________________
cisco-nas mailing list
cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nas

Thanks.... does anyone know what is realistic for the 10008 to handle in
a mixture of pure PPPOE, and L2TP tunnels?? A majority of our PPPOE
traffic does *not* come in via L2TP tunnels but rather directly off the
DSLAM's (pure Ethernet)

Best,

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Storey [mailto:tom@snnap.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 9:44 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: Stephen Fulton; cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-nas] Cisco vs Juniper

> That's very good information Stephen and as always appreciate your
> feedback. We're not against stacking 7206VXR's neither but there's
> something to be said about high density as well.
>
> Our 7206VXR's seem to only handle roughly 2-3000 active subscribers
> where we would like to see 4000 at least (half of Cisco's marketing
> number)....
>
> Anyways, we went through this a couple of years ago too when looking
at
> Redback gear. We had migrated out of the Redback platforms to Cisco
and
> then a few years later ended up looking at them again (more to see
> what's new and better etc.)... stuck with Cisco.
>
> As you also point out, we have tech staff that know Cisco and are used
> to the way Cisco operates (right or wrong)...;)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Paul

The ISP I work for has begun migrating away from multitudes of 7200's
towards 10000 series.

Where we might have had several 7200's terminating a couple of thousand
sessions each, we are now using two 10008's (for redundancy) each
handling
(at present) upwards of 10,000 sessions each, in a mix of PPPoE and
L2TP.

Cisco claims ~60,000 sessions per 10008, even if you dont actually reach
that figure, its probably nicer to have a couple of 10008 *chassis'*
than
a couple of *racks* full of 7200's.





----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
_______________________________________________
cisco-nas mailing list
cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nas

I don't know if this helps to compare, but we have one 7200 (NPE-G2) and
two 10008's (PRE2's). Each 10008 has over 13,000 users on them (mostly
PPPoA, but we're starting to do PPPoEoA). Our 7200 has over 5400 PPPoA
users and over 100 PPPoEoA users.

Our 10k's run around 10% on the CPU.
Our 7200 runs just below 40% on the CPU.

We plan on replacing the 7200 with another 10008 in 2009 with PRE3's.
We're also moving forward with pure Ethernet PPPoE customers and we are
using service policies that will be pushed to the customer via radius
attributes. We have been told that the 10k's scale well with this form
of QOS by Cisco......let's home they're right. ;-)

ATB,
-Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nas-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nas-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 9:51 PM
To: Tom Storey
Cc: cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-nas] Cisco vs Juniper

Thanks.... does anyone know what is realistic for the 10008 to handle in
a mixture of pure PPPOE, and L2TP tunnels?? A majority of our PPPOE
traffic does *not* come in via L2TP tunnels but rather directly off the
DSLAM's (pure Ethernet)

Best,

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Storey [mailto:tom@snnap.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 9:44 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: Stephen Fulton; cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-nas] Cisco vs Juniper

> That's very good information Stephen and as always appreciate your
> feedback. We're not against stacking 7206VXR's neither but there's
> something to be said about high density as well.
>
> Our 7206VXR's seem to only handle roughly 2-3000 active subscribers
> where we would like to see 4000 at least (half of Cisco's marketing
> number)....
>
> Anyways, we went through this a couple of years ago too when looking
at
> Redback gear. We had migrated out of the Redback platforms to Cisco
and
> then a few years later ended up looking at them again (more to see
> what's new and better etc.)... stuck with Cisco.
>
> As you also point out, we have tech staff that know Cisco and are used

> to the way Cisco operates (right or wrong)...;)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Paul

The ISP I work for has begun migrating away from multitudes of 7200's
towards 10000 series.

Where we might have had several 7200's terminating a couple of thousand
sessions each, we are now using two 10008's (for redundancy) each
handling (at present) upwards of 10,000 sessions each, in a mix of PPPoE
and L2TP.

Cisco claims ~60,000 sessions per 10008, even if you dont actually reach
that figure, its probably nicer to have a couple of 10008 *chassis'*
than a couple of *racks* full of 7200's.





------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged
material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender
immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all
attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank
you."
_______________________________________________
cisco-nas mailing list
cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nas

**DISCLAIMER
This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail message. The contents do not represent the opinion of D&E except to the extent that it relates to their official business.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nas mailing list
cisco-nas@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nas

On Wednesday 27 February 2008, Richie, Dave J wrote:

> We plan on replacing the 7200 with another 10008 in 2009
> with PRE3's. We're also moving forward with pure Ethernet
> PPPoE customers and we are using service policies that
> will be pushed to the customer via radius attributes. We
> have been told that the 10k's scale well with this form
> of QOS by Cisco......let's home they're right. ;-)

We don't do any kind of broadband, but are curious on the
experiences folks have had with PXF on these boxes. Some of
the stories that have surfaced on it are quite, well,
interesting...

Mark.