BTW, does somebody check how implementing a native IPv6 decrease actual load of CGNAT?
On 06.04.17 23:33, Aaron Gould wrote: > Last year I evaluated Cisco ASR9006/VSM-500 and Juniper MX104/MS-MIC-16G in > my lab. > > 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... > > - Aaron > > >
