aaron1 at gvtc.com
Thu Apr 6 20:33:41 UTC 2017
Last year I evaluated Cisco ASR9006/VSM-500 and Juniper MX104/MS-MIC-16G in
I went with MX104/MS-MIC-16G. I love it.
I deployed (2) MX104's. Each MX104 has a single MX-MIC-16G card in it. I
integrated this CGNAT with MPLS L3VPN's for NAT Inside vrf and NAT outside
vrf. Both MX104's learn 0/0 route for outside and send a 0/0 route for
inside to all the PE's that have DSLAMs connected to them. So each PE with
DSL connected to it learns default route towards 2 equal cost MX104's. I
could easily add a third MX104 to this modular architecture.
I have 7,000 DSL broadband customers behind it. Peak time throughput is
hitting up at 4 gbps... I see a little over 100,000 service flows
(translations) at peak time
I think each MX104 MS-MIC-16G can able about ~7 million translations and
about 7 gbps of cgnat throughput... so I'm good.
I have a /25 for each MX104 outside public address pool (so /24 total for
both MX104's)... pretty sweet how I use /24 for ~7,000 customers :)
I'll freeze this probably for DSL and not put anything else behind it. I
want to leave well-enough alone.
If I move forward with CGNAT'ing Cable Modem (~6,000 more subsrcibers) I'll
probably roll-out (2) more MX104's with a new vrf for that...
If I move forward with CGNAT'ing FTTH (~20,000 more subsrcibers) I'll
probably roll-out (2) MX240/480/960 with MS-MPC... I feel I'd want/need
something beefier for FTTH...
More information about the NANOG