Junos OS

Expand all | Collapse all

MLPPP Viable alternative

Jump to Best Answer
  • 1.  MLPPP Viable alternative

     
    Posted 01-15-2020 02:19

    Hi all,

     

    Given that MLPPP is not a suitable option for our requirements (Subscriber management MLPPP only supporting 1 member link), does anyone know (LACP Cannot be used) of an MLPPP alternative that will give the same results of aggregating 4 x member links into 1 stream?

     

    Thanks



  • 2.  RE: MLPPP Viable alternative

     
    Posted 01-15-2020 02:27

    Hi,

     

    Can you please provide more details regarding platforms on both sides, links between them and technologies (protocols) that you'd like to use?

     

    Best regards,

    Sergii



  • 3.  RE: MLPPP Viable alternative

     
    Posted 01-15-2020 03:20

    Hi Sergii

     

    I cannot give too much info, but here is what I can give:

     

    4 x WAP Antenna (1gbps) into - possible MX80 with correct inline MIC - bundled to 1 x 10Gbps link to allow for redundancy and 4Gbps throughput on the 10Gbps link.

     

    Mikrotik to MX Chassis

     

    From what I can see, this allows us either MLPPP or MLFR ....  However, the current environment is as follows:

     

    4 x WAP antenna ---> EX9251 ---  I don't think the EX can even do MLPPP.

     

    Thanks



  • 4.  RE: MLPPP Viable alternative

     
    Posted 01-15-2020 04:30

    I also do not see license requirements for an MX80 inline services card.


    Does this mean that an MX80 cannot be used for MLPPP? Juniper documentation says it is supported on an MX80?

     



  • 5.  RE: MLPPP Viable alternative

    Posted 01-15-2020 05:10

    Hello,

     


    @adgwytc wrote:

    does anyone know (LACP Cannot be used) of an MLPPP alternative that will give the same results of aggregating 4 x member links into 1 stream?

     

     


     

    It depends on Your definition of "stream". If You are looking to spread a given packet' bytes over 4 Ethernet links, then apart from PPPOE with MLPPP there is nothing else. Ethernet does not support byte-wise load-share across links, that's why You have to overlay MLPPP over Ethernet to achieve byte-wise load-sharing. With byte-wise load-share, a given session can achieve combined t'put of 4 links less overhead, and no reordering.

    If You are looking to packet-wise load-share meaning a given packet is wholly xmitted over single link only, and other packets may be xmitted over different link or links, then You don't need a special technology for that. With packet-wise load-share, a given session could also achieve combined t'put of 4 links but at a cost of massive packet reordering. Hence, it is recommended to NOT use packet-wise load-share but session-wise meaning packets from the same session have to be xmitted over same single link. 4 static routes with per-packet load-balance policy will achieve it on MX end.

    HTH

    Thx

    Alex 

     



  • 6.  RE: MLPPP Viable alternative

     
    Posted 01-15-2020 05:27

    Hi Alex,

     

    This is exaclty what I thought.

     

    It does have to be 4 links into 1.... so, no matter which of the 4 links the data comes in on, it has to be sent out of the single link. This also has to work in a redundant mode, so if one of the 4 links goes down the other 3 carry on transmitting into the single downstream link.

     

    Do you know if the MX80 inline services card "MIC-3D-16CHE1-T1-CE" is in fact the card required for this service?

    Juniper docs seem to state that an MX80 supports MLPPP with this MIC but yet on the License page, an ML Bundle license does not show support for an MX80.

     

    It is critical that we understand if an MX80 can be used for PPPoE MLPPP or cannot because of the license. Contradicting information on Juniper site.

     

    Thanks



  • 7.  RE: MLPPP Viable alternative

    Posted 01-15-2020 05:53

    Hello,

     


    @adgwytc wrote:

    Hi Alex,

     

    This is exaclty what I thought.

     

    It does have to be 4 links into 1.... so, no matter which of the 4 links the data comes in on, it has to be sent out of the single link. This also has to work in a redundant mode, so if one of the 4 links goes down the other 3 carry on transmitting into the single downstream link.

     

     

    As I said in my previous post, 4 statics with forwarding table LB policy will do it on MX, including auto-removal or auto-addition of links. Expanding above 4 links would require 1 more static per extra link.

     

     


    @adgwytc wrote:

     

    Do you know if the MX80 inline services card "MIC-3D-16CHE1-T1-CE" is in fact the card required for this service?

    Juniper docs seem to state that an MX80 supports MLPPP with this MIC

     

     


     

    This card supports only physical T1 (1536kbps) or E1 (2048kbps) PDH links with MLPPP, but not PPPOE with MLPPP. I doubt You want to swap 1GE links for 2Mbps ones for Your customer.

     


    @adgwytc wrote:

     

     

    It is critical that we understand if an MX80 can be used for PPPoE MLPPP or cannot because of the license.

     

    MX80 can be used as BNG for PPPOE with MLPPP without any extra MIC. I hope You do understand the difference between MLPPP and PPPOE with MLPPP. If not here is 1-line summary:

    - MLPPP is L2 protocol on its own right for serial p2p links whereas PPPOE with MLPPP is (a) for multiaccess links and (b) is a combination of MLPPP L2 protocol exchange overlayed over another  L2 protocol (Ethernet with special Ethertype).

     

    HTH

    Thx

    Alex

     



  • 8.  RE: MLPPP Viable alternative

     
    Posted 01-15-2020 07:11

    Hi Aelx,

     

    Maybe you can help with this then please:

     

    Can we run PPPoE MLPPP in a lab using vMX as a server?

    In a live environment, can we use an EX as a PPPoE MLPPP Server? I believe this emulates an MX204 router with the correct OS (Currently we have this as a switch)

     

    I am starting to get a little confused with all the different information on the juniper pages regarding MLPPP and what is supported and not supported.

     

    What licenses are required, if any, for an MX80 PPPoE MLPPP please?

     

    Let me put that into easy question format  🙂

     

    1: Can we run PPPoE MLPPP on a vMX in a lab? --- Juniper docs say no, but that is for inline MLPPP.

    2: What is the difference between inline MLPPP and PPPoE MLPPP? --- Juniper docs state 8 Member links oer bundle for Inline MLPPP and 1 member link for PPPoE MLPPP.... which is true please?

    3: If we load the MX204 Router software onto the EX9251, can we run multi member per bundle PPPoE MLPP?

    4: If we have to go down the MX80 route, is a License required for PPPoE MLPPP (in fact, same question for EX)?

     

    Hopefully that is a little better.

     

     

     

    Thanks



  • 9.  RE: MLPPP Viable alternative

    Posted 01-15-2020 07:48

    Hello,

     


    @adgwytc wrote:

     

    Can we run PPPoE MLPPP in a lab using vMX as a server?

     

     

    That would be BNG, or rather vBNG. Likely yes, but I haven't tested it myself.

     

     


    @adgwytc wrote:

     

     

    In a live environment, can we use an EX as a PPPoE MLPPP Server? 

     

     

    BNG on EX is not supported, even on EX9K series.

     


    @adgwytc wrote:

     

    What licenses are required, if any, for an MX80 PPPoE MLPPP please?

     

     


     

    I believe it comes with standard BNG/Subscriber Management license. Your Juniper Account Team should be able to give You an exact answer. 

    HTH

    Thx

    Alex



  • 10.  RE: MLPPP Viable alternative

     
    Posted 01-15-2020 08:41

    Hi Alex,

     

    That is great information, thank you for your help. 1 Last question please....

     

    In the juniper docs it states the following:

     

    "For inline MLPPP 8 member links per bundle" - I assume this means 8 physical ports per MLPPP Logical interface?

    "For Subscriber Management only 1 member link per bundle" - Surely this is not right.

     

    Question:

    For subscriber management (BNG) is there only ONE member per MLPPP logical interface allowed, or can we have up to 8 physical ports per 1 logical?

     

    Thanks

     



  • 11.  RE: MLPPP Viable alternative

    Posted 01-15-2020 19:26

    Hello,

     

    For Subscriber Management, You are limited to 1 (one) PPPOE link with MLPPP fragmentation and interleaving as Sergii already told You.

    This is akin to Windows L2TP over IPSec VPN where You can also have MLPPP but only over that single session and only for frag+interleaving. 

    HTH

    Thx

    Alex

     



  • 12.  RE: MLPPP Viable alternative

     
    Posted 01-16-2020 00:21

    Hi Alex,

     

    That's great information from yourself and Sergii.... I just wanted to confirm as that seems strange to have an MLPPP Bundle that only accepts 1 PPPoE member.

     

    With regards to your other suggestion stating 4 x Static links and Load Balancing.... do you have a configuration example or a link to a doc to explain this please?

     

    Thank you



  • 13.  RE: MLPPP Viable alternative
    Best Answer

    Posted 01-16-2020 01:24

    Hello,

     


    @adgwytc wrote:

    Hi Alex,

     

    That's great information from yourself and Sergii.... I just wanted to confirm as that seems strange to have an MLPPP Bundle that only accepts 1 PPPoE member.

     

     


     

    Cisco has the same restriction based on HW model & SW release, see https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/wan_mlp/configuration/xe-16-8/wan-mlp-xe-16-8-book/wan-multilink-ppp-support.html#con_1089051 

    Table 1

    Look for MLPoE or MLPoEoA

     

     


    @adgwytc wrote:

     

    With regards to your other suggestion stating 4 x Static links and Load Balancing.... do you have a configuration example or a link to a doc to explain this please?

     

     

     

    Certainly. Assuming Your 4 links are addressed using /30 subnets from 198.51.100.0/24 block, and CPE clients subnet is 203.0.113.0/24, here is the JUNOS config example

     

    set interfaces ge-0/0/0.0 family inet address 198.51.100.1/30
    set interfaces ge-0/0/1.0 family inet address 198.51.100.5/30
    set interfaces ge-0/0/2.0 family inet address 198.51.100.9/30
    set interfaces ge-0/0/3.0 family inet address 198.51.100.13/30 set routing-options static route 203.0.113.0/24 next-hop [ 198.51.100.2 198.51.100.6 198.51.100.10 198.51.100.14 ] set policy-options policy-statement PPLB term t1 then load-balance per-packet set routing-options forwarding-table export PPLB

     

    The above config will load-balance per-session from MX towards CPE' 203.0.113.0/24 subnet.

     

    HTH

    Thx

    Alex

     



  • 14.  RE: MLPPP Viable alternative

     
    Posted 01-16-2020 02:41

    Hi Alex,

     

    Again, many thanks.

     

    I will mark that answer as the solution, but there are reasons why I am not sure that will work but would need to PM you.