[...]
> With T3 the modems will be on seperate cards - it demuxes to the T1 cards.
The CT3 card is a complete waste. Why would I want to spend twice the
money and tie up a PM-4 slot for a M13 mux? If the CT3 card actually
terminated DS0 & DS1's directly on the card it would be a nice product but
to have to re-terminate the connections over to qudaT1 cards it is a
waste. I have a WideBank 28 (www.carrieraccess.com) which runs about $5k
and is a GREAT M13 mux. It is 1U high, NEBS compliant (for a bit more $$)
and doesn't eat a PM-4 slot
> As for redundant management blades my understanding is that 4.1 will bring
> cold standby - where you can have two blades in the chassis, and if the
> first fails the unit can come back up on the second. But it means losing
> the sessions and restarting. And that 4.2 will be hot-standby, where
> failover will be transparent.
This would be sweet!
> In the long run I'd love to see load-sharing. Especially with higher
> densities, so that you can use both Ethernet interfaces to share the load.
One could only hope. 'course they need the higher density first....
-Matt
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew S. Crocker Vice President / Internet Division Email: matthew@crocker.com Crocker Communications Phone: (413) 587-3350 PO BOX 710 Fax: (413) 587-3352 Greenfield, MA 01302-0710 http://www.crocker.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/>