BNG over ASR9001 Cluster and Satellite

[dfranjoso]

Hello Guys,

Our scenario is a ASR9001 Cluster connected to a couple of Satellite (on the ASR9001 built-in 10GbE interfaces). We are bundling the ICL.

From each Satellite we will have one GbE interface connected to the downstream provider, from where we will receive the Subscriber traffi via PPPoE. Since we are bundling the ICL, we can't bundle these GbE interfaces to our downstream provider. It seems that IGMP is not supported on this setup, where the subscribers access via physical interfaces, not via a bundle.

Am i seeing this correctly? Any workaround?

Thanks!

David

[xthuijs · Accepted solution]

Hi David,

unfortunately this design is not supported yet. In XR 511 we will have LC based subscribers and that would work then, well caution here, the LC based subscribers will work and I expect this satellite access model to inherit that capability, but it may be a separate testing effort.

When you terminate a sub on the phy interface (and that is a Gig100/0/0/0 satellite interface also) the control of the sub resides on the LC, PPP/iEDGE etc and that is a 511 deliverable.

We need a bundle interface so the ppp/iedge/dhcp etc is running on the RSP.

But satellite can only have one bundle today also either access or ICL.

So for now, you would need a plain 10G access (so no ICL redundancy) and a bundle satellite interface for BNG on Satellite.

(and of course 431 minimum, 432 preferred right now)

regards

xander

[dfranjoso]

Thanks Xander.

[dfranjoso]

Xander,

One last question. What's the ETA for the 5.1.1 ?

Thanks

[xthuijs]

Oh that's a good question david, I thought it was end of this year, 510 just came out.

cheers

xander

[dfranjoso]

Hello Xander,

From the ASR9000 Configuration Guide:

Restrictions

•

These topologies are not supported on nV Satellite:

◦

Single Ethernet ports (non-bundle) on the CPE side of the Satellite node, connected to the ASR9K

through single Ethernet port connections.

◦

Bundled Ethernet ports on the CPE side of the Satellite node connected, to the ASR9K through

bundle Ethernet connections.

•

BNG is not supported on Satellite with non-bundle ICL.

Am i crazy, or this doesn't make any sense... (hoping that i am crazy..)

[xthuijs]

hi david,

you're not going crazy, the documentation is a bit confusing. that is why I prefer to write my own because then I know it is accurate . Am working on rectifying this for this particular case and overall because it difficult for people to find an accurate answer and we want to be able to read it off CCO as opposed to supprotforums... I know ...

Any case to answer your question:

BNG requires a bundle interface today, this to move the control to the RP. XR511 btw will support LC based subscribers so that limitation is removed then. Also bundle access and bundle ICL is a XR52 deliverable (just so you know ).

BNG Supports nV Satellite, Two different topologies that nV Satellite supports are:
(in short, there needs to be a bundle SOMEWHERE)

1) Bundled Ethernet ports on the CPE side of the Satellite node connected to the ASR9K through single Ethernet port connection(s).
2) Non-bundle ports from the satellite out to the access network, and bundle ports between the Satellite node and the ASR9K.


Restrictions: These topologies are not supported on nV Satellite:
1) Single Ethernet ports (non-bundle) on the CPE side of the Satellite node, 
connected to the ASR9K through single Ethernet port connections.
(= LC based subscriber, XR51x)
2) Bundled Ethernet ports on the CPE side of the Satellite node connected, to 
the ASR9K through bundle Ethernet connections.
(= bundle access + bundle ICL => XR52 deliverable)

Does that help?

regards

xander

[dfranjoso]

The documentation is not confusing. Its a crap. Between 2009 and 2012 i participated on the design, testing and implementation of a major ASR9K deployment (>100) and i've opened lots of documentations bugs (including LFA config on the 4.0, PIC-EDGE, etc.). We escalated and had a response (VP level) saying that things would improve on the near future. Around three years passed since my first documentation bug report and things are pretty much the same. It is frustrating. Your help here is essential to get things moving. Once again thanks!

[xthuijs]

hey David, I apologize for that, but the "****" says it all!

It is difficult to disagree with, and I recognize the need for improvement!

My interim approach is sound docu here and good answers, but ultimately this needs to ripple through to the location where it matters.

Can I use your feedback in my discussions to address the situation?

cheers

xander

[dfranjoso]

Please do.

[Pichet Piriyakitkosol]

Hi Xander

Can we enable NAT44 on ASR9001? From my understand we need ISM for CGN but on ASR9001 it's doesn't support ISM. If yes do we need any license?

Thank you

Pichet

[xthuijs]

Correct Pichet, you need an ISM for NAT, and since the 9001 doesnt have a slot available, you can't insert the ISM hence no option to do NAT on the 9001.

NAT/ISM does not require a specific license.

regards

xander

[Pichet Piriyakitkosol]

Thanks Xander. It's bad news for me.

T_T