But, it doesn't share 686 modems across 28 T1's.
> > its very similar to integrating 2 PM3s on each PM4 card. As far as
Which, IMHO, is a poor way to do it. What if for some reason, you have
very ISDN traffic? Then, to get all the B channels I need, I waste lots of
modems.
The PM-3, in this respect, is a much better design. You had modular modem
cards, so that if you were selling an ISDN only service, you don't have to
buy expensive modem cards.
> > multi-chassis PPP is concerned, PPP connections can span across multiple
> > T1s, cards, or chassis's.
Thats expected, is it not?
Not only that, the PM-4 is ~$100 more per port than the PM-3, is only
moderately more dense than the 5800 (which will change soon anyway), and
tech-support is still lacking the turnaround time needed in this industry.
Somehow, thinking about it (this is a stretch, I know), something about
Livingston now being owned by the company that used to be AT&T which at
one time was the holding company for the RBOC's would explain some of
this.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
I route, therefore I am.
Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member
Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer
Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834
Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>