Please consider this a formal RFE for renumbering the ports on the PM4. RADIUS
accounting packets are virtually unusable because we keep track of who is
online on which port. We use RADIUS NT to keep track of who is online for
troubleshooting and call concurrency purposes. The fact that all blades use the
same numbering scheme is really bad design - imho. The ports should all have
their own numbers. We have a table named ServerPorts which is populated by a
trigger when an accounting record is received from the PM. If a call comes in
on port 5 on blade one and a minute later a call comes in on port 5 on blade 2,
the second call will show and the first will not. This is bad. I think the
ports should be numbered based on the blade number and the number of ports.
Reserve 96 ports and ignore the last 6 if the card is a PM4-3E1-98M - in the
same manner that listing the PRI lines ignores the 24th channel unless NFAS is
being used. I KNOW that we could potentially work around this by using the
session id and port number or ip address and port number and changing our
database design, but that is a kludge and completely patchwork solution. Is a
fix for this in the works? Has anyone else found this to be a problem? Please
let Lucent know too. Thanks!
-Robert
Tellurian Networks (Formerly Garden Networks)
Quality Nationwide Internet Access since 1995
Access, Co-location, Development & Consulting
http://www.tellurian.net (973)300-9211 Ext.103
Earth first! We'll stripmine the other planets later.
"The penalty for censoring what your children are
taught is children who are no brighter than you."
Finger robert@tellurian.net for PGP public key
-
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/>