Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Cisco: BBA

Which Cisco as an LNS

 

 

Cisco bba RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


thomas at wibble

Jan 6, 2005, 9:58 AM

Post #1 of 25 (4248 views)
Permalink
Which Cisco as an LNS

I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
light on this.

I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on the table,
a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600 series
which I'm told will support 16k users. The price difference is less
10%.

It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it possible one of the
resellers is missing something?

Thomas


jeje at jeje

Jan 6, 2005, 10:06 AM

Post #2 of 25 (4200 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

--On jeudi 6 janvier 2005 16:58 +0000 Thomas Bridge <thomas [at] wibble> wrote:

> I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on the table,
> a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600 series
> which I'm told will support 16k users. The price difference is less
> 10%.

Hi Thomas,

I'm surprised by the price of your 7600. Anyway, the 7300 is probably more designed to act as a
LNS than the 7600, and yes, it will handle 8k sessions.

Jerome.


aschutz at cisco

Jan 6, 2005, 10:44 AM

Post #3 of 25 (4203 views)
Permalink
RE: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

Thomas,

The 7600 only acts as an LNS when using the MWAM. The MWAM will add to the
price you are configuring and I imagine that will put a little more
difference between the two. With the MWAM, I believe the number is actually
32k subscribers, not 16k. Can you provide a pointer to the 16k number?

Hope that helps a bit,

Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
> [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Thomas Bridge
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 10:58 AM
> To: cisco-bba [at] puck
> Subject: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS
>
>
> I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
> light on this.
>
> I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on the table,
> a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a
> 7600 series
> which I'm told will support 16k users. The price difference is less
> 10%.
>
> It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it possible
> one of the
> resellers is missing something?
>
> Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>


ariev at netvision

Jan 6, 2005, 10:57 AM

Post #4 of 25 (4202 views)
Permalink
RE: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

The 7301 is a superb LNS both for L2TP and PPTP.
It can support around 3500-4000 broadband users with 50-60% cpu load.
The limitation is not because of any per user resources (you can add more users) but because of packets per second rates, so the number would change depending on your user's bandwidth and usage.

Arie

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck on behalf of Thomas Bridge
Sent: ה 06/01/2005 18:58
To: cisco-bba [at] puck
Cc:
Subject: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS



I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
light on this.

I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on the table,
a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600 series
which I'm told will support 16k users. The price difference is less
10%.

It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it possible one of the
resellers is missing something?

Thomas

_______________________________________________
cisco-bba mailing list
cisco-bba [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba


thomas at wibble

Jan 6, 2005, 11:00 AM

Post #5 of 25 (4201 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:44:18AM -0600, Andy Schutz (aschutz) wrote:

> The 7600 only acts as an LNS when using the MWAM. The MWAM will add to the
> price you are configuring and I imagine that will put a little more
> difference between the two. With the MWAM, I believe the number is actually
> 32k subscribers, not 16k. Can you provide a pointer to the 16k number?

My account manager said that having used the Cisco Navigator It doesn't support
L2TP on the 7301. I thought that sounded wrong, and it turns out it is.

I'll go back to him with this,

Regards,

Thomas


clayton at MNSi

Jan 6, 2005, 12:08 PM

Post #6 of 25 (4205 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.

Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.

One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20% CPU load. I'll
probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I run out of CPU
power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE ports, so if your
sessions come in that way, you won't run into the bandwidth limitation of a
single PA.

I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my Cisco 6400's.

We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS

I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.

At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
>I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
>light on this.
>
>I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on the table,
>a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600 series
>which I'm told will support 16k users. The price difference is less
>10%.
>
>It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it possible one of the
>resellers is missing something?
>
>Thomas
>
>_______________________________________________
>cisco-bba mailing list
>cisco-bba [at] puck
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005

---
Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
Windsor, Ontario
N8X 5E8

tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-258-3009



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005


ariev at netvision

Jan 6, 2005, 1:46 PM

Post #7 of 25 (4210 views)
Permalink
RE: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

I have more than 100,000 L2TP users to prove him wrong.
It also supports PPTP, but I think that official support for it is weak.

Arie

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck on behalf of Thomas Bridge
Sent: ה 06/01/2005 20:00
To: Andy Schutz (aschutz)
Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS



On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:44:18AM -0600, Andy Schutz (aschutz) wrote:

> The 7600 only acts as an LNS when using the MWAM. The MWAM will add to the
> price you are configuring and I imagine that will put a little more
> difference between the two. With the MWAM, I believe the number is actually
> 32k subscribers, not 16k. Can you provide a pointer to the 16k number?

My account manager said that having used the Cisco Navigator It doesn't support
L2TP on the 7301. I thought that sounded wrong, and it turns out it is.

I'll go back to him with this,

Regards,

Thomas

_______________________________________________
cisco-bba mailing list
cisco-bba [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba


jason at lixfeld

Jan 7, 2005, 4:16 PM

Post #8 of 25 (4199 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

Totally off the cuff here, and not necessarily pertaining to an LNS
(because an LNS in this configuration would be bad on so many levels)
but the NPE-G1 is spec'd for 16k connections (but I have no idea what
the real world shows the performance of this CPU to be). AFAIR, the
7301 has the same CPU but is limited to the number of interfaces you
can drop into it. If you get say a 7206 with a G1, it would be cheaper
than a 7301, no? (or maybe slightly more expensive) but you can put 4
OC3 cards in it (any more and you run out of BW points). At the end of
the day, wouldn't that be cheaper than rack and stacks of 7301s? (in
terms of both cost and rack space?).

On Jan 6, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:

>
> We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.
>
> Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.
>
> One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20% CPU load.
> I'll probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I run out of
> CPU power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE ports, so if
> your sessions come in that way, you won't run into the bandwidth
> limitation of a single PA.
>
> I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my Cisco
> 6400's.
>
> We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS
>
> I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.
>
> At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
>> I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
>> light on this.
>>
>> I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on the table,
>> a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600
>> series
>> which I'm told will support 16k users. The price difference is less
>> 10%.
>>
>> It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it possible one of
>> the
>> resellers is missing something?
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-bba mailing list
>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>
> ---
> Clayton Zekelman
> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
> 344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
> Windsor, Ontario
> N8X 5E8
>
> tel. 519-985-8410
> fax. 519-258-3009
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>


clayton at MNSi

Jan 7, 2005, 4:32 PM

Post #9 of 25 (4198 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

Its pretty close. The place where the costs start to add up on a 7206 is
when you start to add redundant DC power supplies. The 7301 is a single DC
supply, with dual inputs, vs. the 7206 which is a true redundant supply. I
think the SmartNet is a bit more costly on the 7206 as well.

You're definitely right, the 7206 is certainly a more flexible option when
it comes to multiple interfaces. We considered this, but figured we would
end up burning more CPU horsepower later as we started using the processing
capacity of the device more (filtering, shaping, etc...), so the number of
interfaces wouldn't matter as much.

I'd rather keep the boxes lightly loaded, and the $4k or so saved by going
with the 7301 was worth the tradeoff.

At 06:16 PM 1/7/2005, you wrote:
>Totally off the cuff here, and not necessarily pertaining to an LNS
>(because an LNS in this configuration would be bad on so many levels) but
>the NPE-G1 is spec'd for 16k connections (but I have no idea what the real
>world shows the performance of this CPU to be). AFAIR, the 7301 has the
>same CPU but is limited to the number of interfaces you can drop into
>it. If you get say a 7206 with a G1, it would be cheaper than a 7301, no?
>(or maybe slightly more expensive) but you can put 4 OC3 cards in it (any
>more and you run out of BW points). At the end of the day, wouldn't that
>be cheaper than rack and stacks of 7301s? (in terms of both cost and rack
>space?).
>
>On Jan 6, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>
>>
>>We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.
>>
>>Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.
>>
>>One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20% CPU load.
>>I'll probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I run out of CPU
>>power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE ports, so if your
>>sessions come in that way, you won't run into the bandwidth limitation of
>>a single PA.
>>
>>I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my Cisco 6400's.
>>
>>We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS
>>
>>I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.
>>
>>At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
>>>I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
>>>light on this.
>>>
>>>I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on the table,
>>>a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600 series
>>>which I'm told will support 16k users. The price difference is less
>>>10%.
>>>
>>>It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it possible one of the
>>>resellers is missing something?
>>>
>>>Thomas
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>cisco-bba mailing list
>>>cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>
>>---
>>Clayton Zekelman
>>Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
>>344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
>>Windsor, Ontario
>>N8X 5E8
>>
>>tel. 519-985-8410
>>fax. 519-258-3009
>>
>>
>>--
>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>cisco-bba mailing list
>>cisco-bba [at] puck
>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005

---
Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
Windsor, Ontario
N8X 5E8

tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-258-3009



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005


jason at lixfeld

Jan 7, 2005, 4:56 PM

Post #10 of 25 (4201 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

You say you're at 2000 users @ 20% CPU. What do you (or would you)
expect to see from your 7301 in terms of simultaneous users assuming
your ATM interface wasn't a factor? ATM != fragmentation issues which
overhead you don't have to worry about so there's more CPU to work with
there...

Are there architectural differences between DSL in Canada and DSL in
the US? In Canada, if you're with Bell your option is PPPoE over L2TP
and that's it. I seem to remember however, that some time ago in the
US you had options such as straight PPPoE w/o L2TP and straight L2TP
w/o PPPoE. Services like these would allow you to fit more subscribers
on a box, hence justifying a 16k BBA license on a 7301 where in Bell
land up here in Canada, you wouldn't be able to push 16k sessions
through a 7301 so an 8k BBA license should suffice, no?

On Jan 7, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:

>
> Its pretty close. The place where the costs start to add up on a 7206
> is when you start to add redundant DC power supplies. The 7301 is a
> single DC supply, with dual inputs, vs. the 7206 which is a true
> redundant supply. I think the SmartNet is a bit more costly on the
> 7206 as well.
>
> You're definitely right, the 7206 is certainly a more flexible option
> when it comes to multiple interfaces. We considered this, but figured
> we would end up burning more CPU horsepower later as we started using
> the processing capacity of the device more (filtering, shaping,
> etc...), so the number of interfaces wouldn't matter as much.
>
> I'd rather keep the boxes lightly loaded, and the $4k or so saved by
> going with the 7301 was worth the tradeoff.
>
> At 06:16 PM 1/7/2005, you wrote:
>> Totally off the cuff here, and not necessarily pertaining to an LNS
>> (because an LNS in this configuration would be bad on so many levels)
>> but the NPE-G1 is spec'd for 16k connections (but I have no idea what
>> the real world shows the performance of this CPU to be). AFAIR, the
>> 7301 has the same CPU but is limited to the number of interfaces you
>> can drop into it. If you get say a 7206 with a G1, it would be
>> cheaper than a 7301, no? (or maybe slightly more expensive) but you
>> can put 4 OC3 cards in it (any more and you run out of BW points).
>> At the end of the day, wouldn't that be cheaper than rack and stacks
>> of 7301s? (in terms of both cost and rack space?).
>>
>> On Jan 6, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.
>>>
>>> Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.
>>>
>>> One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20% CPU load.
>>> I'll probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I run out of
>>> CPU power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE ports, so if
>>> your sessions come in that way, you won't run into the bandwidth
>>> limitation of a single PA.
>>>
>>> I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my Cisco
>>> 6400's.
>>>
>>> We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS
>>>
>>> I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.
>>>
>>> At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
>>>> I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
>>>> light on this.
>>>>
>>>> I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on the
>>>> table,
>>>> a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600
>>>> series
>>>> which I'm told will support 16k users. The price difference is
>>>> less
>>>> 10%.
>>>>
>>>> It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it possible one of
>>>> the
>>>> resellers is missing something?
>>>>
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Clayton Zekelman
>>> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
>>> 344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
>>> Windsor, Ontario
>>> N8X 5E8
>>>
>>> tel. 519-985-8410
>>> fax. 519-258-3009
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>
> ---
> Clayton Zekelman
> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
> 344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
> Windsor, Ontario
> N8X 5E8
>
> tel. 519-985-8410
> fax. 519-258-3009
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>
>


ariev at netvision

Jan 8, 2005, 1:22 AM

Post #11 of 25 (4204 views)
Permalink
RE: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

NPE-G1 and the 7301 are virtually the same CPU platform, with the same 3
GigE ports, and the same performance.
The only advantage of the 7206 is the space for more PA's (take into
account the bandwidth points) and the only advantage of the 7301 is it's
small footprint (if you need to put 20 of them into a rack).

You can get dual power supplies for the 7301 (at least for AC, which we
use, but I think it's available for DC as well).

Arie

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Jason Lixfeld
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:17 AM
To: Clayton Zekelman
Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS

Totally off the cuff here, and not necessarily pertaining to an LNS
(because an LNS in this configuration would be bad on so many levels)
but the NPE-G1 is spec'd for 16k connections (but I have no idea what
the real world shows the performance of this CPU to be). AFAIR, the
7301 has the same CPU but is limited to the number of interfaces you can
drop into it. If you get say a 7206 with a G1, it would be cheaper than
a 7301, no? (or maybe slightly more expensive) but you can put 4
OC3 cards in it (any more and you run out of BW points). At the end of
the day, wouldn't that be cheaper than rack and stacks of 7301s? (in
terms of both cost and rack space?).

On Jan 6, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:

>
> We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.
>
> Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.
>
> One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20% CPU load.
> I'll probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I run out of
> CPU power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE ports, so if
> your sessions come in that way, you won't run into the bandwidth
> limitation of a single PA.
>
> I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my Cisco
> 6400's.
>
> We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS
>
> I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.
>
> At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
>> I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
>> light on this.
>>
>> I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on the table,
>> a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600
>> series
>> which I'm told will support 16k users. The price difference is less
>> 10%.
>>
>> It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it possible one of
>> the resellers is missing something?
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-bba mailing list
>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>
> ---
> Clayton Zekelman
> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
> 344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
> Windsor, Ontario
> N8X 5E8
>
> tel. 519-985-8410
> fax. 519-258-3009
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>

_______________________________________________
cisco-bba mailing list
cisco-bba [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba


achatz at forthnet

Jan 8, 2005, 3:33 AM

Post #12 of 25 (4201 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

If i remember correctly, the 7300 has a new ios which is supposed to activate a
2nd -inactive until now- cpu used exclusively for l2tp, which means it maybe
gets a better performance as LNS.

I don't know if the 7200 can/will have the same feature sometime later.

Arie Vayner wrote on 8/1/2005 10:22 πμ:
> NPE-G1 and the 7301 are virtually the same CPU platform, with the same 3
> GigE ports, and the same performance.
> The only advantage of the 7206 is the space for more PA's (take into
> account the bandwidth points) and the only advantage of the 7301 is it's
> small footprint (if you need to put 20 of them into a rack).
>
> You can get dual power supplies for the 7301 (at least for AC, which we
> use, but I think it's available for DC as well).
>
> Arie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
> [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Jason Lixfeld
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:17 AM
> To: Clayton Zekelman
> Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS
>
> Totally off the cuff here, and not necessarily pertaining to an LNS
> (because an LNS in this configuration would be bad on so many levels)
> but the NPE-G1 is spec'd for 16k connections (but I have no idea what
> the real world shows the performance of this CPU to be). AFAIR, the
> 7301 has the same CPU but is limited to the number of interfaces you can
> drop into it. If you get say a 7206 with a G1, it would be cheaper than
> a 7301, no? (or maybe slightly more expensive) but you can put 4
> OC3 cards in it (any more and you run out of BW points). At the end of
> the day, wouldn't that be cheaper than rack and stacks of 7301s? (in
> terms of both cost and rack space?).
>
> On Jan 6, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>
>
>>We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.
>>
>>Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.
>>
>>One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20% CPU load.
>>I'll probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I run out of
>>CPU power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE ports, so if
>>your sessions come in that way, you won't run into the bandwidth
>>limitation of a single PA.
>>
>>I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my Cisco
>>6400's.
>>
>>We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS
>>
>>I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.
>>
>>At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
>>
>>>I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
>>>light on this.
>>>
>>>I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on the table,
>>>a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600
>>>series
>>>which I'm told will support 16k users. The price difference is less
>>>10%.
>>>
>>>It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it possible one of
>>>the resellers is missing something?
>>>
>>>Thomas
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>cisco-bba mailing list
>>>cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>
>>---
>>Clayton Zekelman
>>Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
>>344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
>>Windsor, Ontario
>>N8X 5E8
>>
>>tel. 519-985-8410
>>fax. 519-258-3009
>>
>>
>>--
>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>cisco-bba mailing list
>>cisco-bba [at] puck
>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba


ariev at netvision

Jan 8, 2005, 4:16 AM

Post #13 of 25 (4202 views)
Permalink
RE: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

It's not out yet, but if I understand it right, it should be availble for the NPE-G1 as well, because they should be the same (but I can be wrong - I do not KNOW it for a fact)

Arie

-----Original Message-----
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou [mailto:achatz [at] forthnet]
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:34 PM
To: Arie Vayner
Cc: Jason Lixfeld; Clayton Zekelman; cisco-bba [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS

If i remember correctly, the 7300 has a new ios which is supposed to activate a 2nd -inactive until now- cpu used exclusively for l2tp, which means it maybe gets a better performance as LNS.

I don't know if the 7200 can/will have the same feature sometime later.

Arie Vayner wrote on 8/1/2005 10:22 :
> NPE-G1 and the 7301 are virtually the same CPU platform, with the same
> 3 GigE ports, and the same performance.
> The only advantage of the 7206 is the space for more PA's (take into
> account the bandwidth points) and the only advantage of the 7301 is
> it's small footprint (if you need to put 20 of them into a rack).
>
> You can get dual power supplies for the 7301 (at least for AC, which
> we use, but I think it's available for DC as well).
>
> Arie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
> [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Jason Lixfeld
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:17 AM
> To: Clayton Zekelman
> Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS
>
> Totally off the cuff here, and not necessarily pertaining to an LNS
> (because an LNS in this configuration would be bad on so many levels)
> but the NPE-G1 is spec'd for 16k connections (but I have no idea what
> the real world shows the performance of this CPU to be). AFAIR, the
> 7301 has the same CPU but is limited to the number of interfaces you
> can drop into it. If you get say a 7206 with a G1, it would be
> cheaper than a 7301, no? (or maybe slightly more expensive) but you
> can put 4
> OC3 cards in it (any more and you run out of BW points). At the end
> of the day, wouldn't that be cheaper than rack and stacks of 7301s?
> (in terms of both cost and rack space?).
>
> On Jan 6, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>
>
>>We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.
>>
>>Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.
>>
>>One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20% CPU load.
>>I'll probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I run out of
>>CPU power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE ports, so if
>>your sessions come in that way, you won't run into the bandwidth
>>limitation of a single PA.
>>
>>I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my Cisco
>>6400's.
>>
>>We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS
>>
>>I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.
>>
>>At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
>>
>>>I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
>>>light on this.
>>>
>>>I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on the table,
>>>a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600
>>>series
>>>which I'm told will support 16k users. The price difference is less
>>>10%.
>>>
>>>It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it possible one of
>>>the resellers is missing something?
>>>
>>>Thomas
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>cisco-bba mailing list
>>>cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>
>>---
>>Clayton Zekelman
>>Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
>>344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
>>Windsor, Ontario
>>N8X 5E8
>>
>>tel. 519-985-8410
>>fax. 519-258-3009
>>
>>
>>--
>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>cisco-bba mailing list
>>cisco-bba [at] puck
>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba


ianh at chime

Jan 8, 2005, 5:55 AM

Post #14 of 25 (4205 views)
Permalink
RE: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Arie Vayner wrote:

> It's not out yet, but if I understand it right, it should be availble
> for the NPE-G1 as well, because they should be the same (but I can be
> wrong - I do not KNOW it for a fact)

AFAIK, the improvements for the 7301 only enable the second CPU in an L2TP
LAC environment, not as an LNS. Cisco have mentioned that there is new
code coming for LNS or BRAS enablements for the 7301 and the G1, but its
not here yet.

I would be more than happy to be proved wrong though. :)

Rgds,



- I.

--
Ian Henderson CCNA, CCNP
Senior Network Engineer, Chime Communications


ariev at netvision

Jan 8, 2005, 6:15 AM

Post #15 of 25 (4199 views)
Permalink
RE: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

There is a EFT starting these days.
Arie

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck on behalf of Ian Henderson
Sent: ש 08/01/2005 14:55
To: cisco-bba [at] puck
Cc:
Subject: RE: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS



On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Arie Vayner wrote:

> It's not out yet, but if I understand it right, it should be availble
> for the NPE-G1 as well, because they should be the same (but I can be
> wrong - I do not KNOW it for a fact)

AFAIK, the improvements for the 7301 only enable the second CPU in an L2TP
LAC environment, not as an LNS. Cisco have mentioned that there is new
code coming for LNS or BRAS enablements for the 7301 and the G1, but its
not here yet.

I would be more than happy to be proved wrong though. :)

Rgds,



- I.

--
Ian Henderson CCNA, CCNP
Senior Network Engineer, Chime Communications
_______________________________________________
cisco-bba mailing list
cisco-bba [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba


phorrock at cisco

Jan 8, 2005, 8:04 AM

Post #16 of 25 (4205 views)
Permalink
RE: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

Hi

This is 7301 as LAC only, available in 12.3(7)XI:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5187/prod_bulletin0900aecd801727c5.html

and the following URL describes is the MPF feature

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5413/products_feature_guide09186a00801fadc3.html

Hope it helps
Regards
paul

<phorrock [at] cisco>
Office +44 (0)161 249-5773
Mobile +44 (0)7802 981177


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
> [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of
> Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 10:34 AM
> To: Arie Vayner
> Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS
>
> If i remember correctly, the 7300 has a new ios which is
> supposed to activate a 2nd -inactive until now- cpu used
> exclusively for l2tp, which means it maybe gets a better
> performance as LNS.
>
> I don't know if the 7200 can/will have the same feature
> sometime later.
>
> Arie Vayner wrote on 8/1/2005 10:22 :
> > NPE-G1 and the 7301 are virtually the same CPU platform,
> with the same
> > 3 GigE ports, and the same performance.
> > The only advantage of the 7206 is the space for more PA's
> (take into
> > account the bandwidth points) and the only advantage of the 7301 is
> > it's small footprint (if you need to put 20 of them into a rack).
> >
> > You can get dual power supplies for the 7301 (at least for
> AC, which
> > we use, but I think it's available for DC as well).
> >
> > Arie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
> > [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of
> Jason Lixfeld
> > Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:17 AM
> > To: Clayton Zekelman
> > Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS
> >
> > Totally off the cuff here, and not necessarily pertaining to an LNS
> > (because an LNS in this configuration would be bad on so
> many levels)
> > but the NPE-G1 is spec'd for 16k connections (but I have no
> idea what
> > the real world shows the performance of this CPU to be). AFAIR, the
> > 7301 has the same CPU but is limited to the number of
> interfaces you
> > can drop into it. If you get say a 7206 with a G1, it would be
> > cheaper than a 7301, no? (or maybe slightly more expensive) but you
> > can put 4
> > OC3 cards in it (any more and you run out of BW points).
> At the end
> > of the day, wouldn't that be cheaper than rack and stacks of 7301s?
> > (in terms of both cost and rack space?).
> >
> > On Jan 6, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
> >
> >
> >>We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.
> >>
> >>Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.
> >>
> >>One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20%
> CPU load.
> >>I'll probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I
> run out of
> >>CPU power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE
> ports, so if
> >>your sessions come in that way, you won't run into the bandwidth
> >>limitation of a single PA.
> >>
> >>I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my Cisco
> >>6400's.
> >>
> >>We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS
> >>
> >>I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.
> >>
> >>At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
> >>>light on this.
> >>>
> >>>I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on
> the table,
> >>>a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600
> >>>series
> >>>which I'm told will support 16k users. The price
> difference is less
> >>>10%.
> >>>
> >>>It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it
> possible one of
> >>>the resellers is missing something?
> >>>
> >>>Thomas
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>cisco-bba mailing list
> >>>cisco-bba [at] puck
> >>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
> >>
> >>---
> >>Clayton Zekelman
> >>Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
> >>344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
> >>Windsor, Ontario
> >>N8X 5E8
> >>
> >>tel. 519-985-8410
> >>fax. 519-258-3009
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>cisco-bba mailing list
> >>cisco-bba [at] puck
> >>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-bba mailing list
> > cisco-bba [at] puck
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-bba mailing list
> > cisco-bba [at] puck
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>


achatz at forthnet

Jan 8, 2005, 9:03 AM

Post #17 of 25 (4210 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

:-(( too bad a similar feature isn't available for LNS too.

From my experience, LNS (=aggregators) need it more than LAC.

Paul Horrocks (phorrock) wrote on 8/1/2005 5:04 :

> Hi
>
> This is 7301 as LAC only, available in 12.3(7)XI:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5187/prod_bulletin0900aecd801727c5.html
>
> and the following URL describes is the MPF feature
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5413/products_feature_guide09186a00801fadc3.html
>
> Hope it helps
> Regards
> paul
>
> <phorrock [at] cisco>
> Office +44 (0)161 249-5773
> Mobile +44 (0)7802 981177
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
>>[mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of
>>Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
>>Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 10:34 AM
>>To: Arie Vayner
>>Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
>>Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS
>>
>>If i remember correctly, the 7300 has a new ios which is
>>supposed to activate a 2nd -inactive until now- cpu used
>>exclusively for l2tp, which means it maybe gets a better
>>performance as LNS.
>>
>>I don't know if the 7200 can/will have the same feature
>>sometime later.
>>
>>Arie Vayner wrote on 8/1/2005 10:22 :
>>
>>>NPE-G1 and the 7301 are virtually the same CPU platform,
>>
>>with the same
>>
>>>3 GigE ports, and the same performance.
>>>The only advantage of the 7206 is the space for more PA's
>>
>>(take into
>>
>>>account the bandwidth points) and the only advantage of the 7301 is
>>>it's small footprint (if you need to put 20 of them into a rack).
>>>
>>>You can get dual power supplies for the 7301 (at least for
>>
>>AC, which
>>
>>>we use, but I think it's available for DC as well).
>>>
>>>Arie
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
>>>[mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of
>>
>>Jason Lixfeld
>>
>>>Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:17 AM
>>>To: Clayton Zekelman
>>>Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS
>>>
>>>Totally off the cuff here, and not necessarily pertaining to an LNS
>>>(because an LNS in this configuration would be bad on so
>>
>>many levels)
>>
>>>but the NPE-G1 is spec'd for 16k connections (but I have no
>>
>>idea what
>>
>>>the real world shows the performance of this CPU to be). AFAIR, the
>>>7301 has the same CPU but is limited to the number of
>>
>>interfaces you
>>
>>>can drop into it. If you get say a 7206 with a G1, it would be
>>>cheaper than a 7301, no? (or maybe slightly more expensive) but you
>>>can put 4
>>>OC3 cards in it (any more and you run out of BW points).
>>
>>At the end
>>
>>>of the day, wouldn't that be cheaper than rack and stacks of 7301s?
>>>(in terms of both cost and rack space?).
>>>
>>>On Jan 6, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.
>>>>
>>>>Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.
>>>>
>>>>One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20%
>>
>>CPU load.
>>
>>>>I'll probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I
>>
>>run out of
>>
>>>>CPU power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE
>>
>>ports, so if
>>
>>>>your sessions come in that way, you won't run into the bandwidth
>>>>limitation of a single PA.
>>>>
>>>>I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my Cisco
>>>>6400's.
>>>>
>>>>We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS
>>>>
>>>>I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.
>>>>
>>>>At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
>>>>>light on this.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on
>>
>>the table,
>>
>>>>>a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600
>>>>>series
>>>>>which I'm told will support 16k users. The price
>>
>>difference is less
>>
>>>>>10%.
>>>>>
>>>>>It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it
>>
>>possible one of
>>
>>>>>the resellers is missing something?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>cisco-bba mailing list
>>>>>cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>Clayton Zekelman
>>>>Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
>>>>344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
>>>>Windsor, Ontario
>>>>N8X 5E8
>>>>
>>>>tel. 519-985-8410
>>>>fax. 519-258-3009
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>cisco-bba mailing list
>>>>cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>cisco-bba mailing list
>>>cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>cisco-bba mailing list
>>>cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>cisco-bba mailing list
>>cisco-bba [at] puck
>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>
>


jason at lixfeld

Jan 8, 2005, 9:09 AM

Post #18 of 25 (4202 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

Not sure if it's a good idea to run something like a 7301 as an LNS
even if it could support that feature. You'd want to be sure that
something forwarding that volume of callers wasn't a single point of
failure. I think something like a 10000 or a 7600 (although stupid
expensive) would be a better fit as a hi-cap LNS because you can have
redundant processors, etc. which would reduce the box's chances of
failing and potentially taking all your customers offline.

On Jan 8, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:

> :-(( too bad a similar feature isn't available for LNS too.
>
> From my experience, LNS (=aggregators) need it more than LAC.
>
> Paul Horrocks (phorrock) wrote on 8/1/2005 5:04 μμ:
>
>> Hi
>> This is 7301 as LAC only, available in 12.3(7)XI:
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5187/
>> prod_bulletin0900aecd801727c5.html
>> and the following URL describes is the MPF feature
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5413/
>> products_feature_guide09186a00801fadc3.html
>> Hope it helps Regards
>> paul
>> <phorrock [at] cisco>
>> Office +44 (0)161 249-5773 Mobile +44 (0)7802 981177
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
>>> [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Tassos
>>> Chatzithomaoglou
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 10:34 AM
>>> To: Arie Vayner
>>> Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS
>>>
>>> If i remember correctly, the 7300 has a new ios which is supposed to
>>> activate a 2nd -inactive until now- cpu used exclusively for l2tp,
>>> which means it maybe gets a better performance as LNS.
>>>
>>> I don't know if the 7200 can/will have the same feature sometime
>>> later.
>>>
>>> Arie Vayner wrote on 8/1/2005 10:22 πμ:
>>>
>>>> NPE-G1 and the 7301 are virtually the same CPU platform,
>>>
>>> with the same
>>>> 3 GigE ports, and the same performance.
>>>> The only advantage of the 7206 is the space for more PA's
>>>
>>> (take into
>>>> account the bandwidth points) and the only advantage of the 7301 is
>>>> it's small footprint (if you need to put 20 of them into a rack).
>>>>
>>>> You can get dual power supplies for the 7301 (at least for
>>>
>>> AC, which
>>>> we use, but I think it's available for DC as well).
>>>>
>>>> Arie
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
>>>> [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of
>>>
>>> Jason Lixfeld
>>>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:17 AM
>>>> To: Clayton Zekelman
>>>> Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS
>>>>
>>>> Totally off the cuff here, and not necessarily pertaining to an LNS
>>>> (because an LNS in this configuration would be bad on so
>>>
>>> many levels)
>>>> but the NPE-G1 is spec'd for 16k connections (but I have no
>>>
>>> idea what
>>>> the real world shows the performance of this CPU to be). AFAIR, the
>>>> 7301 has the same CPU but is limited to the number of
>>>
>>> interfaces you
>>>> can drop into it. If you get say a 7206 with a G1, it would be
>>>> cheaper than a 7301, no? (or maybe slightly more expensive) but you
>>>> can put 4
>>>> OC3 cards in it (any more and you run out of BW points).
>>>
>>> At the end
>>>> of the day, wouldn't that be cheaper than rack and stacks of 7301s?
>>>> (in terms of both cost and rack space?).
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 6, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20%
>>>
>>> CPU load.
>>>>> I'll probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I
>>>
>>> run out of
>>>>> CPU power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE
>>>
>>> ports, so if
>>>>> your sessions come in that way, you won't run into the bandwidth
>>>>> limitation of a single PA.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my
>>>>> Cisco 6400's.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
>>>>>> light on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on
>>>
>>> the table,
>>>
>>>>>> a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600
>>>>>> series
>>>>>> which I'm told will support 16k users. The price
>>>
>>> difference is less
>>>
>>>>>> 10%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it
>>>
>>> possible one of
>>>>>> the resellers is missing something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>>>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date:
>>>>>> 1/3/2005
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Clayton Zekelman
>>>>> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
>>>>> 344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
>>>>> Windsor, Ontario
>>>>> N8X 5E8
>>>>>
>>>>> tel. 519-985-8410
>>>>> fax. 519-258-3009
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>


jason at lixfeld

Jan 8, 2005, 9:23 AM

Post #19 of 25 (4206 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

MPF would be a cool feature for us folks up here in Canada if the ilec
could get their stuff sorted out and give you proper gigE as in
interconnect instead of 4 bonded FastEs.

On Jan 8, 2005, at 10:04 AM, Paul Horrocks ((phorrock)) wrote:

> Hi
>
> This is 7301 as LAC only, available in 12.3(7)XI:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5187/
> prod_bulletin0900aecd801727c5.html
>
> and the following URL describes is the MPF feature
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5413/
> products_feature_guide09186a00801fadc3.html
>
> Hope it helps
> Regards
> paul
>
> <phorrock [at] cisco>
> Office +44 (0)161 249-5773
> Mobile +44 (0)7802 981177
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
>> [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of
>> Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
>> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 10:34 AM
>> To: Arie Vayner
>> Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS
>>
>> If i remember correctly, the 7300 has a new ios which is
>> supposed to activate a 2nd -inactive until now- cpu used
>> exclusively for l2tp, which means it maybe gets a better
>> performance as LNS.
>>
>> I don't know if the 7200 can/will have the same feature
>> sometime later.
>>
>> Arie Vayner wrote on 8/1/2005 10:22 πμ:
>>> NPE-G1 and the 7301 are virtually the same CPU platform,
>> with the same
>>> 3 GigE ports, and the same performance.
>>> The only advantage of the 7206 is the space for more PA's
>> (take into
>>> account the bandwidth points) and the only advantage of the 7301 is
>>> it's small footprint (if you need to put 20 of them into a rack).
>>>
>>> You can get dual power supplies for the 7301 (at least for
>> AC, which
>>> we use, but I think it's available for DC as well).
>>>
>>> Arie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
>>> [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of
>> Jason Lixfeld
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:17 AM
>>> To: Clayton Zekelman
>>> Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS
>>>
>>> Totally off the cuff here, and not necessarily pertaining to an LNS
>>> (because an LNS in this configuration would be bad on so
>> many levels)
>>> but the NPE-G1 is spec'd for 16k connections (but I have no
>> idea what
>>> the real world shows the performance of this CPU to be). AFAIR, the
>>> 7301 has the same CPU but is limited to the number of
>> interfaces you
>>> can drop into it. If you get say a 7206 with a G1, it would be
>>> cheaper than a 7301, no? (or maybe slightly more expensive) but you
>>> can put 4
>>> OC3 cards in it (any more and you run out of BW points).
>> At the end
>>> of the day, wouldn't that be cheaper than rack and stacks of 7301s?
>>> (in terms of both cost and rack space?).
>>>
>>> On Jan 6, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.
>>>>
>>>> Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.
>>>>
>>>> One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20%
>> CPU load.
>>>> I'll probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I
>> run out of
>>>> CPU power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE
>> ports, so if
>>>> your sessions come in that way, you won't run into the bandwidth
>>>> limitation of a single PA.
>>>>
>>>> I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my Cisco
>>>> 6400's.
>>>>
>>>> We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS
>>>>
>>>> I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.
>>>>
>>>> At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
>>>>> light on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on
>> the table,
>>>>> a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600
>>>>> series
>>>>> which I'm told will support 16k users. The price
>> difference is less
>>>>> 10%.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it
>> possible one of
>>>>> the resellers is missing something?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Clayton Zekelman
>>>> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
>>>> 344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
>>>> Windsor, Ontario
>>>> N8X 5E8
>>>>
>>>> tel. 519-985-8410
>>>> fax. 519-258-3009
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-bba mailing list
>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>


ariev at netvision

Jan 8, 2005, 9:33 AM

Post #20 of 25 (4205 views)
Permalink
RE: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

We are running several 10's of 7301's as LNSs with considerably more than 100,000 online broadband subscribers both with PPTP and L2TP.

The 7301's are very stable (I am talking about 200 days uptime, and we take them down for upgrades).



On the 7600 the redundant CPU would not keep the subscribers running, because it would not act as an LNS, but you would use an MWAM card that is virtually 3 7301's on a 7600 card...



The redundancy can be achieved by using a CSM to load balance the L2TP tunnels between the 7301's or just opening multiple tunnels (depends on the scale you need). You can run redundant CSM's with statefull failover, and the only thing that may happen is that users would be disconnected and would reconnect in 10 seconds to a different 7301 (if the old one goes down or something). You just need to keep 20% (or whatever you feel comfortable with) as spare capacity for such cases



We are running this solution for more than 3 years now, starting with 7400's and then moving to 7301's.



Arie

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck on behalf of Jason Lixfeld
Sent: ש 08/01/2005 18:09
To: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS



Not sure if it's a good idea to run something like a 7301 as an LNS
even if it could support that feature. You'd want to be sure that
something forwarding that volume of callers wasn't a single point of
failure. I think something like a 10000 or a 7600 (although stupid
expensive) would be a better fit as a hi-cap LNS because you can have
redundant processors, etc. which would reduce the box's chances of
failing and potentially taking all your customers offline.

On Jan 8, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:

> :-(( too bad a similar feature isn't available for LNS too.
>
> From my experience, LNS (=aggregators) need it more than LAC.
>
> Paul Horrocks (phorrock) wrote on 8/1/2005 5:04 μμ:
>
>> Hi
>> This is 7301 as LAC only, available in 12.3(7)XI:
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5187/
>> prod_bulletin0900aecd801727c5.html
>> and the following URL describes is the MPF feature
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5413/
>> products_feature_guide09186a00801fadc3.html
>> Hope it helps Regards
>> paul
>> <phorrock [at] cisco>
>> Office +44 (0)161 249-5773 Mobile +44 (0)7802 981177
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
>>> [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Tassos
>>> Chatzithomaoglou
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 10:34 AM
>>> To: Arie Vayner
>>> Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS
>>>
>>> If i remember correctly, the 7300 has a new ios which is supposed to
>>> activate a 2nd -inactive until now- cpu used exclusively for l2tp,
>>> which means it maybe gets a better performance as LNS.
>>>
>>> I don't know if the 7200 can/will have the same feature sometime
>>> later.
>>>
>>> Arie Vayner wrote on 8/1/2005 10:22 πμ:
>>>
>>>> NPE-G1 and the 7301 are virtually the same CPU platform,
>>>
>>> with the same
>>>> 3 GigE ports, and the same performance.
>>>> The only advantage of the 7206 is the space for more PA's
>>>
>>> (take into
>>>> account the bandwidth points) and the only advantage of the 7301 is
>>>> it's small footprint (if you need to put 20 of them into a rack).
>>>>
>>>> You can get dual power supplies for the 7301 (at least for
>>>
>>> AC, which
>>>> we use, but I think it's available for DC as well).
>>>>
>>>> Arie
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck
>>>> [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of
>>>
>>> Jason Lixfeld
>>>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:17 AM
>>>> To: Clayton Zekelman
>>>> Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] Which Cisco as an LNS
>>>>
>>>> Totally off the cuff here, and not necessarily pertaining to an LNS
>>>> (because an LNS in this configuration would be bad on so
>>>
>>> many levels)
>>>> but the NPE-G1 is spec'd for 16k connections (but I have no
>>>
>>> idea what
>>>> the real world shows the performance of this CPU to be). AFAIR, the
>>>> 7301 has the same CPU but is limited to the number of
>>>
>>> interfaces you
>>>> can drop into it. If you get say a 7206 with a G1, it would be
>>>> cheaper than a 7301, no? (or maybe slightly more expensive) but you
>>>> can put 4
>>>> OC3 cards in it (any more and you run out of BW points).
>>>
>>> At the end
>>>> of the day, wouldn't that be cheaper than rack and stacks of 7301s?
>>>> (in terms of both cost and rack space?).
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 6, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20%
>>>
>>> CPU load.
>>>>> I'll probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I
>>>
>>> run out of
>>>>> CPU power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE
>>>
>>> ports, so if
>>>>> your sessions come in that way, you won't run into the bandwidth
>>>>> limitation of a single PA.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my
>>>>> Cisco 6400's.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
>>>>>> light on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on
>>>
>>> the table,
>>>
>>>>>> a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600
>>>>>> series
>>>>>> which I'm told will support 16k users. The price
>>>
>>> difference is less
>>>
>>>>>> 10%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it
>>>
>>> possible one of
>>>>>> the resellers is missing something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>>>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date:
>>>>>> 1/3/2005
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Clayton Zekelman
>>>>> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
>>>>> 344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
>>>>> Windsor, Ontario
>>>>> N8X 5E8
>>>>>
>>>>> tel. 519-985-8410
>>>>> fax. 519-258-3009
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>


_______________________________________________
cisco-bba mailing list
cisco-bba [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba


clayton at MNSi

Jan 8, 2005, 10:27 AM

Post #21 of 25 (4203 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

At 06:56 PM 1/7/2005, you wrote:
>You say you're at 2000 users @ 20% CPU. What do you (or would you) expect
>to see from your 7301 in terms of simultaneous users assuming your ATM
>interface wasn't a factor? ATM != fragmentation issues which overhead you
>don't have to worry about so there's more CPU to work with there...


My guess is that the 7301 would realistically be able to handle 8000 users
at 80% CPU load, if it scales linearly, given our current mix of
traffic. An ATM OC3c interface is capable of around 4500 sessions given
our current traffic mix. This is with the box handling only LNS
functions. If you do traffic shaping, packet filtering, or tunnel
switching in a LAC/LNS combined application, I would suspect the CPU
utilization would go up somewhat. How much isn't clear.


>Are there architectural differences between DSL in Canada and DSL in the
>US? In Canada, if you're with Bell your option is PPPoE over L2TP and
>that's it. I seem to remember however, that some time ago in the US you
>had options such as straight PPPoE w/o L2TP and straight L2TP w/o
>PPPoE. Services like these would allow you to fit more subscribers on a
>box, hence justifying a 16k BBA license on a 7301 where in Bell land up
>here in Canada, you wouldn't be able to push 16k sessions through a 7301
>so an 8k BBA license should suffice, no?

I honestly don't know what the various LEC's in the US do for DSL
aggregation. I'm sure it varies. We use the Bell (former Nexxia) L2TP
network over ATM. The problem with the current L2TP over Ethernet LAN
Extension architecture is precisely what you pointed out earlier -
fragmentation. A 7301 running in that situation would likely have less
headroom on the CPU unless can eliminate sources of fragmentation by using
Adjust-MSS or otherwise limit the size of packets traversing the L2TP
tunnels - which themselves take up CPU power.

An 8000 user BBA license for a 7301 would likely be sufficient. Even if I
could get more traffic into the box using ATM (thus avoiding fragmentation
issues), I don't like pushing the CPU up as high as 80%. I like having
headroom to be able to withstand a DoS attack if necessary.

In our particular application however, the 7301 is probably a good fit -
the extra GigE ports we have can be used to aggregate PPPoE traffic from
our co-locates in the Bell CO's. We have dark fiber which would allow us
to use "IP" based (really Ethernet) DSLAM's in the future (currently we use
ATM DSLAMs to bring PPPoE sessions into our C6400's in areas where we have
co-locates, rather than using Bell's L2TP service).

>On Jan 7, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>
>>
>>Its pretty close. The place where the costs start to add up on a 7206 is
>>when you start to add redundant DC power supplies. The 7301 is a single
>>DC supply, with dual inputs, vs. the 7206 which is a true redundant
>>supply. I think the SmartNet is a bit more costly on the 7206 as well.
>>
>>You're definitely right, the 7206 is certainly a more flexible option
>>when it comes to multiple interfaces. We considered this, but figured we
>>would end up burning more CPU horsepower later as we started using the
>>processing capacity of the device more (filtering, shaping, etc...), so
>>the number of interfaces wouldn't matter as much.
>>
>>I'd rather keep the boxes lightly loaded, and the $4k or so saved by
>>going with the 7301 was worth the tradeoff.
>>
>>At 06:16 PM 1/7/2005, you wrote:
>>>Totally off the cuff here, and not necessarily pertaining to an LNS
>>>(because an LNS in this configuration would be bad on so many levels)
>>>but the NPE-G1 is spec'd for 16k connections (but I have no idea what
>>>the real world shows the performance of this CPU to be). AFAIR, the
>>>7301 has the same CPU but is limited to the number of interfaces you can
>>>drop into it. If you get say a 7206 with a G1, it would be cheaper than
>>>a 7301, no? (or maybe slightly more expensive) but you can put 4 OC3
>>>cards in it (any more and you run out of BW points).
>>>At the end of the day, wouldn't that be cheaper than rack and stacks of
>>>7301s? (in terms of both cost and rack space?).
>>>
>>>On Jan 6, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.
>>>>
>>>>Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.
>>>>
>>>>One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20% CPU load.
>>>>I'll probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I run out of
>>>>CPU power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE ports, so if
>>>>your sessions come in that way, you won't run into the bandwidth
>>>>limitation of a single PA.
>>>>
>>>>I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my Cisco 6400's.
>>>>
>>>>We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS
>>>>
>>>>I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.
>>>>
>>>>At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
>>>>>I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
>>>>>light on this.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on the table,
>>>>>a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600 series
>>>>>which I'm told will support 16k users. The price difference is less
>>>>>10%.
>>>>>
>>>>>It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it possible one of the
>>>>>resellers is missing something?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>cisco-bba mailing list
>>>>>cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>Clayton Zekelman
>>>>Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
>>>>344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
>>>>Windsor, Ontario
>>>>N8X 5E8
>>>>
>>>>tel. 519-985-8410
>>>>fax. 519-258-3009
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>cisco-bba mailing list
>>>>cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>>
>>---
>>Clayton Zekelman
>>Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
>>344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
>>Windsor, Ontario
>>N8X 5E8
>>
>>tel. 519-985-8410
>>fax. 519-258-3009
>>
>>
>>--
>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005

---
Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
Windsor, Ontario
N8X 5E8

tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-258-3009



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005


clayton at MNSi

Jan 8, 2005, 10:30 AM

Post #22 of 25 (4206 views)
Permalink
RE: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

Yes, you're right - with the further restriction that the traffic must be
coming in from one of the GigE ports - not the Port Adapter slot.

My guess is this functionality was added for a specific large customer, and
is designed to fit their exact application. Cisco will likely revisit it
later and add more generalized functionality.


At 07:55 AM 1/8/2005, Ian Henderson wrote:
>On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Arie Vayner wrote:
>
> > It's not out yet, but if I understand it right, it should be availble
> > for the NPE-G1 as well, because they should be the same (but I can be
> > wrong - I do not KNOW it for a fact)
>
>AFAIK, the improvements for the 7301 only enable the second CPU in an L2TP
>LAC environment, not as an LNS. Cisco have mentioned that there is new
>code coming for LNS or BRAS enablements for the 7301 and the G1, but its
>not here yet.
>
>I would be more than happy to be proved wrong though. :)
>
>Rgds,
>
>
>
>- I.
>
>--
>Ian Henderson CCNA, CCNP
>Senior Network Engineer, Chime Communications
>_______________________________________________
>cisco-bba mailing list
>cisco-bba [at] puck
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005

---
Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
Windsor, Ontario
N8X 5E8

tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-258-3009



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005


clayton at MNSi

Jan 8, 2005, 10:41 AM

Post #23 of 25 (4200 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

In theory, if they implement Tunnel Switching properly, they could provide
2 paths from each TSW box - one to a primary, and one to a backup LNS.

I don't know that they're doing that right now. Thus far, I have refused
to implement Tunnel Switching until they can prove to me it make sense to
route traffic from Windsor to Windsor via Toronto-Caniff (700km round trip).

Either way, when we were running C6400 NRP-1's, we weren't running
redundant. We never had a failure due to the NRP-1's themselves. Any
issues we had were with Bell's Cat5500's, and the flaky SUP cards. Now
that we're on ATM, we've been immune to that.

At 11:09 AM 1/8/2005, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
>Not sure if it's a good idea to run something like a 7301 as an LNS
>even if it could support that feature. You'd want to be sure that
>something forwarding that volume of callers wasn't a single point of
>failure. I think something like a 10000 or a 7600 (although stupid
>expensive) would be a better fit as a hi-cap LNS because you can have
>redundant processors, etc. which would reduce the box's chances of
>failing and potentially taking all your customers offline.
>

Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
Windsor, Ontario
N8X 5E8

tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-258-3009



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005


jason at lixfeld

Jan 8, 2005, 3:00 PM

Post #24 of 25 (4207 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

On Jan 8, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:

>
> In theory, if they implement Tunnel Switching properly, they could
> provide 2 paths from each TSW box - one to a primary, and one to a
> backup LNS.

We investigated this alternative for one of our customers, but Bell
won't touch that. Too bad.

> I don't know that they're doing that right now. Thus far, I have
> refused to implement Tunnel Switching until they can prove to me it
> make sense to route traffic from Windsor to Windsor via Toronto-Caniff
> (700km round trip).

I didn't know you had a choice (to go ERX or BAS).

> Either way, when we were running C6400 NRP-1's, we weren't running
> redundant. We never had a failure due to the NRP-1's themselves.
> Any issues we had were with Bell's Cat5500's, and the flaky SUP cards.
> Now that we're on ATM, we've been immune to that.

Too bad more people don't see it like you do. ATM is a far superior
product for this type of service.

> At 11:09 AM 1/8/2005, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
>> Not sure if it's a good idea to run something like a 7301 as an LNS
>> even if it could support that feature. You'd want to be sure that
>> something forwarding that volume of callers wasn't a single point of
>> failure. I think something like a 10000 or a 7600 (although stupid
>> expensive) would be a better fit as a hi-cap LNS because you can have
>> redundant processors, etc. which would reduce the box's chances of
>> failing and potentially taking all your customers offline.
>>
>
> Clayton Zekelman
> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
> 344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
> Windsor, Ontario
> N8X 5E8
>
> tel. 519-985-8410
> fax. 519-258-3009
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>
>


jason at lixfeld

Jan 8, 2005, 3:44 PM

Post #25 of 25 (4207 views)
Permalink
Re: Which Cisco as an LNS [In reply to]

On Jan 8, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:

> At 06:56 PM 1/7/2005, you wrote:
>> You say you're at 2000 users @ 20% CPU. What do you (or would you)
>> expect to see from your 7301 in terms of simultaneous users assuming
>> your ATM interface wasn't a factor? ATM != fragmentation issues
>> which overhead you don't have to worry about so there's more CPU to
>> work with there...
>
>
> My guess is that the 7301 would realistically be able to handle 8000
> users at 80% CPU load, if it scales linearly, given our current mix of
> traffic. An ATM OC3c interface is capable of around 4500 sessions
> given our current traffic mix. This is with the box handling only LNS
> functions. If you do traffic shaping, packet filtering, or tunnel
> switching in a LAC/LNS combined application, I would suspect the CPU
> utilization would go up somewhat. How much isn't clear.

Interesting. That's just over 29kb/s per subscriber. I've heard from
another wholesaler that their traffic patters are in the area of 50kb/s
per subscriber. Are those resi numbers or corporate numbers?

>> Are there architectural differences between DSL in Canada and DSL in
>> the US? In Canada, if you're with Bell your option is PPPoE over
>> L2TP and that's it. I seem to remember however, that some time ago
>> in the US you had options such as straight PPPoE w/o L2TP and
>> straight L2TP w/o PPPoE. Services like these would allow you to fit
>> more subscribers on a box, hence justifying a 16k BBA license on a
>> 7301 where in Bell land up here in Canada, you wouldn't be able to
>> push 16k sessions through a 7301 so an 8k BBA license should suffice,
>> no?
>
> I honestly don't know what the various LEC's in the US do for DSL
> aggregation. I'm sure it varies. We use the Bell (former Nexxia)
> L2TP network over ATM. The problem with the current L2TP over
> Ethernet LAN Extension architecture is precisely what you pointed out
> earlier - fragmentation. A 7301 running in that situation would
> likely have less headroom on the CPU unless can eliminate sources of
> fragmentation by using Adjust-MSS or otherwise limit the size of
> packets traversing the L2TP tunnels - which themselves take up CPU
> power.
>
> An 8000 user BBA license for a 7301 would likely be sufficient. Even
> if I could get more traffic into the box using ATM (thus avoiding
> fragmentation issues), I don't like pushing the CPU up as high as 80%.
> I like having headroom to be able to withstand a DoS attack if
> necessary.

Which brings me back to my original comment about a 7301 vs a 7206 :)

> In our particular application however, the 7301 is probably a good fit
> - the extra GigE ports we have can be used to aggregate PPPoE traffic
> from our co-locates in the Bell CO's. We have dark fiber which would
> allow us to use "IP" based (really Ethernet) DSLAM's in the future
> (currently we use ATM DSLAMs to bring PPPoE sessions into our C6400's
> in areas where we have co-locates, rather than using Bell's L2TP
> service).

Wow, that's an interesting model. Isn't colocate access expensive (not
to mention the dark fiber) Bell doesn't cross connect to your DSLAM
right? so for every DSL turn up you have, you need to do a truck role?
Or do you bundle truck rolls?

>> On Jan 7, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Its pretty close. The place where the costs start to add up on a
>>> 7206 is when you start to add redundant DC power supplies. The 7301
>>> is a single DC supply, with dual inputs, vs. the 7206 which is a
>>> true redundant supply. I think the SmartNet is a bit more costly on
>>> the 7206 as well.
>>>
>>> You're definitely right, the 7206 is certainly a more flexible
>>> option when it comes to multiple interfaces. We considered this,
>>> but figured we would end up burning more CPU horsepower later as we
>>> started using the processing capacity of the device more (filtering,
>>> shaping, etc...), so the number of interfaces wouldn't matter as
>>> much.
>>>
>>> I'd rather keep the boxes lightly loaded, and the $4k or so saved by
>>> going with the 7301 was worth the tradeoff.
>>>
>>> At 06:16 PM 1/7/2005, you wrote:
>>>> Totally off the cuff here, and not necessarily pertaining to an LNS
>>>> (because an LNS in this configuration would be bad on so many
>>>> levels) but the NPE-G1 is spec'd for 16k connections (but I have no
>>>> idea what the real world shows the performance of this CPU to be).
>>>> AFAIR, the 7301 has the same CPU but is limited to the number of
>>>> interfaces you can drop into it. If you get say a 7206 with a G1,
>>>> it would be cheaper than a 7301, no? (or maybe slightly more
>>>> expensive) but you can put 4 OC3 cards in it (any more and you run
>>>> out of BW points).
>>>> At the end of the day, wouldn't that be cheaper than rack and
>>>> stacks of 7301s? (in terms of both cost and rack space?).
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 6, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We're using a pair of 7301's as LNS's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Users are coming in on ATM-OC3c (PA-A3-OC3) on L2TP tunnels.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of our boxes is running with 2000 users at around 20% CPU load.
>>>>> I'll probably run out of bandwidth on the ATM PA before I run out
>>>>> of CPU power. Alternatively, the box also has 3 Gig/FastE ports,
>>>>> so if your sessions come in that way, you won't run into the
>>>>> bandwidth limitation of a single PA.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm cutting over the second 7301 on the weekend, replacing my
>>>>> Cisco 6400's.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're using 12.3(11)T IP IOS
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm quite happy with the 7301's so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 11:58 AM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
>>>>>> I'm getting confused here, and was hoping someone could shed some
>>>>>> light on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been trying to spec up an LNS. I've two options on the
>>>>>> table,
>>>>>> a 7300 series which I'm told will support 8000 users, and a 7600
>>>>>> series
>>>>>> which I'm told will support 16k users. The price difference is
>>>>>> less
>>>>>> 10%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would seem to make sense to use the 7600 - is it possible one
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> resellers is missing something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>>>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date:
>>>>>> 1/3/2005
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Clayton Zekelman
>>>>> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
>>>>> 344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
>>>>> Windsor, Ontario
>>>>> N8X 5E8
>>>>>
>>>>> tel. 519-985-8410
>>>>> fax. 519-258-3009
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-bba mailing list
>>>>> cisco-bba [at] puck
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Clayton Zekelman
>>> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
>>> 344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
>>> Windsor, Ontario
>>> N8X 5E8
>>>
>>> tel. 519-985-8410
>>> fax. 519-258-3009
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>
> ---
> Clayton Zekelman
> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
> 344-300 Tecumseh Rd. E.
> Windsor, Ontario
> N8X 5E8
>
> tel. 519-985-8410
> fax. 519-258-3009
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>
>

Cisco bba RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.