>I've read 1717 and 1990, and I just skimmed them again - maybe I missed
it.
>Can you post the fragment to which you are referring?
>
>The closest thing I found is this in RFC 1717:
> The goal of multilink operation is to coordinate multiple independent
> links between a fixed pair of systems, providing a virtual link with
> greater bandwidth than any of the constituent members. The aggregate
> link, or bundle, is named by the pair of identifiers for two systems
> connected by the multiple links. A system identifier may include
> information provided by PPP Authentication [3] and information
> provided by LCP negotiation. The bundled links can be different
> physical links, as in multiple async lines, but may also be instances
> of multiplexed links, such as ISDN, X.25 or Frame Relay. The links
> may also be of different kinds, such as pairing dialup async links
> with leased synchronous links.
>
>And I don't see how you can get what you are claiming from this paragraph.
>It does not indicate any requirements to support the different port types,
>merely that it is possible.
>
>But, as I said, I just skimmed it now to see if I could find what you were
>referring to - please let me know.
>
>>misrepresention we encountered (with Livingston sales people and techs
and
>>the online PM3 faq) is the claim that the PM3 supports 33.6's. To date,
it
>
>The datasheet online says 28.8 - I'll look for any other 33.6 references.
>Officially, at the moment, we support 28.8K.
I don't want to start a flame over semantics of RFC's, only to further
explain what I meant. What you quote above doesn't quite tell the whole
story nor does it convey the context of the General Overview section of any
RFC for those who are not familiar with reading them.
Section 1.2 Functional Description (this section describes the requirements
for compliance) states:
. . . .
1. The system offering the option is capable of combining multiple physical
links into one logical link;
. . . .
A physical link is defined implicitly later in the paragraph you quoted
above (which was part of the General Overview section of the RFC), which
effectively says that the physical link itself need not be limited to any
specific type or speed provided it can support PPP. Without getting into
the guts of the MPPP definition, suffice it to say that it goes on to
describe exactly how to implement the protocol in both synchronous and
asynchronous situations (more specifically, how to implement things without
regard to whether the bonded physical links are synchronous or
asynchronous). In other words, "The system offering the option . . ."
should offer it without regard to the supported physical links. More
clearly, if you sell a box (system) that supports multiple types of
physical links, then you say that it's RFC 1717 compliant (I've counted 4
occurances of this statement in the manuals without any reference to the
fact that it's only for ISDN), then the implementation of the protocol
should be according to the RFC. It's like saying that the box supports PPP
negotiation over a TCP/IP connection but only if the packets come in order
and none of them are missing.
About the 33.6 support issue, I concede that the newer revs of the ComOS
may allow for a partially 33.6 connection (although we rarely see even as a
good as a 28.8 over our US West provided Channelized T1 and we've never
seen a 33.6, but I digress). My point was, that we were told that it
supported 33.6 before we bought it (which was way back at the beginning of
this year). Anyway, here's the reference to the PM3 FAQ that states that
the PM3 supports 33.6's. Megazone, if you have any influence over the
changing of this misleading online information, can you see what you can
do?
http://www.livingston.com/Marketing/Products/pm3qa.shtml#13
. . . .
Q. Does the PM3 support 33.6Kbps modem?
A. Yes.
. . . .
David Matthews
Webmaster--Internet Technology Systems
webmaster@itsnet.com