> On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, MegaZone wrote:
> > Funny that it isn't a problem for nearly all users.
>
> kinda, it's only funny to people that DONT take their circuit reliability
> serious enough to notice or dont have the tools or are too uninformed to
> notice.
>
> > If there is a serious problem then it sounds like the line in use is
> > not synced to the universal clock like it should be. If it is being
> > fed by some internally generated stand-alone clock then it is likely to
> > break a lot, that's just a limitation. It was designed to work with
> > network clocks.
>
> limitation? yes, a serious limitation.
>
> > I think this is called a bullshit statement. It works flawlessly on a
> > proper network. End of story.
>
> end of what story? no, line1 clocking is "out of spec" aka defective.
>
> nothing bullshit about my statement. get off your "know it all" horse or
> test it out for yourself.
>
> > Nothing can be done, it is how the HW is designed. And it has been working
> > fine for thousands of PM-3s for a long time. There is no fundamental flaw,
> > the trouble is when it is used with disparate clock sources. Which is an
> > abnormality in the network.
>
> i strongly disagree.
I have to agree with Robert - to use a technical term - it's broken!. If
there is one thing that is obvious about Livingston products, and I know
it's dangerous to generalize, it's that the Lucention engineers are
thinking like typical engineers: "The Holy Spec [1] says that all these
lines *should* be running off a Universal Clock Source and, By God, they
better be, 'cause I'm (serious engineer speaking here) not responsible for
*their* engineering sloppiness!
If you've been following/using Cisco products, you'll see that they have
had similar issues with users mixing CT1s and PRIs on different interface
modules (on products like the 3600 series) attached to different switches
from different Telcos and, guess what, they have already fixed this
problem. And it was probably a royal Pain to fix, and it required changes
to hardware and software components, but they bit the bullet and *fixed*
it. And you can upgrade the *modular* hardware if you need to! What a
concept! And Cisco is happy to take your money and fix your problem!
If the Livingston engineers were a little more flexible in their thinking
they'ed be designing for Telco sloppiness in the hardware - even if they
don't have the necessary software ready at initial ship date. But as it
stands, the PM3 hardware is fixed, cast in concrete, non
modular/upgradable, inflexible and from the users' perspective it's broken.
And when is Livingston gonna learn: If the customer says it's broken, then
it's *broken*! The current modem code is *broken*. 3.8.2 is broken! Not
being able to say (via Radius or whatever): "When I get a modem call from
Joe 'CheapAssModem' Blow from 9997771212 with his cheap ass V.90 modem -
fix it at 33k6 baud with no renegotiations/retrains" means that from Joe
Blows prespective the PM3 is *broken*!
> who does know how the clocking is handled on th pm4? is it flawed like the
> pm3? i doubt it, yet the question has to be asked.
>
If the same, inflexible engineering team, is working on the PM4, then I'll
put money down that it's *broken*. And the same, inflexible, know-it-all
management team will turn around and tell me: "Well, Al, it's working for
xxx users, so it can't be broken and you are just plain wrong".
Yeah - I know - "It's Only a Flesh Wound". Come back here you coward!
[1] Could this possibly be some phychotic reference to Monty Phyton?
Yours Bleedingly,
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al@logical-approach.com
Voice: 972-379-2133 Fax: 972-379-2134
-
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/>