RE: (ASCEND) 7.10.6 software for the DSL MAX 20

[bcurnow <bcurnow@sonnet.com>]

The thing I'm concerned about is that doing permconn reloads (to update or
add new users) force all the existing connections to drop..  Not a huge
problem on plain bridge connections, but I thnk PPPoE customers would
notice and wonder what was going on. 

----------------- Brian  Curnow ----------------

On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Randy E. Reinhardt wrote:

> Actually everyone, ignore Ascends claim of a thousand PVC's on a DSL
> Terminator....It's 64 - that's right, 64 PVC's using the built-in profiles.
> If you are silly enough to want to do more then that, IE going to RADIUS,
> there is NO WAY to control the traffic shaping/speeds of any of the RADIUS
> permconn profiles. (yes, we use that CPE bridged to DSLAM and even bridged
> through the Terminator scenario)
> 
> We have a DS3 circuit (That should support 1000 PVC's yes?) from the Telco
> DSLAM and in the Terminators DS3 config you can specify traffic shapers that
> throttle back the speeds, then in the connection profiles, again in the
> Terminator you can specify which traffic shaper to use.  Good so far...till
> you try RADIUS.  No way to specify that traffic shaper so guess what?  Each
> customer gets a wide open (up to 45Mbps) connection.  All using Traffic
> Shaper Profile 16 which is the default and guess what again?  You cannot
> change the default Traffic Shaper Profile.
> 
> So we are being forced to *give* free upgrades from 384/128Kbps (which is
> what most of our clients are paying for) to instead the 1.5Mbps speeds that
> NV Bell supports on most of the lines.  Nice eh?  Due to Ascend/Lucent if we
> want more then 64 DSL customers they all get to surf at T1 speeds for the
> price of 384Kbps.
> 
> And if I sound a little bitter it is because for 11 days now Ascend/Lucent
> has been promising to get us beta code that had this support...then when I
> complained yesterday that we *needed* this support, *now*...oops, it's not
> going to be supported in the new code...we'll have TAC look at it.
> Meanwhile we are being forced to give bandwidth away...or turn customers
> away.  Not a fun choice.
> 
> 
> Randy E. Reinhardt
> randy@pyramid.net <mailto:randy@pyramid.net>
> System Administrator
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com
> [mailto:owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com]On Behalf Of Matt Holdrege
> Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 12:00 PM
> To: Tony Ray
> Cc: ascend-users@bungi.com
> Subject: Re: (ASCEND) 7.10.6 software for the DSL MAX 20
> 
> 
> The Terminator does support the feature called Bridged IP Routing (BIR),
> which almost identical to Cisco's IRB. This feature was implemented
> specifically for that reason, where CPE equipment is a plain vanilla Bridge
> and the PC's traffic is bridged (CPE) and then switched (DSLAM) and finally
> bridging encapsulation is terminated on the Terminator and then routed.
> 
> Multiple customer premises share the same subnet and the Terminator has
> one of its interfaces on that subnet.
> 
> Bridge groups is another feature that allows customer to create
> "poor man's" VLANs by combining multiple bridged interfaces in
> unique bridge group.
> 
>  > >Also, while the Terminator 100 appears to be able to handle 1000 dlci's,
>  > >there is no mention of whether there are limits on the number of dlci's
>  > >per T-1 interface.
> 
> Even if you consider SERIOUS oversubsription, I am not sure how practical
> is 1000 pvcs on 1 T1 line.
> 
> ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
> To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
> To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
> 

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>