I am a bit surprised that not more people request this feature.
In Europe where ISDN is widely used MCPP is an absolute must.
As there will be no new PM product which would be compatible to
the PM3 in this point, I find that Lucent must do something like the
MAX 3000 or MAX 6000 MCPP compatible to the PM3.
If this won't happen I really see no reason continuing with Lucent
for remote access, a company which destroyed a wonderful company
once called Livingston.
I have a cisco AS5300 and an Assured Access X.600 box here for testing
at the moment and I will probably go with one of these boxes as they will
be as compatible to my PM3's as the MAX boxes.
Christian
>Hi!
>
>Yes, I think that's something we really should 'force' Lucent to do
>(compatibility between Portmasters and Maxen).
>
>Mit freundlichen Grüssen
>
>Patrick Kormann
>DataComm (Schweiz) AG
>
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Christian Schmit [mailto:cschmit@vo.lu]
> > Gesendet am: Freitag, 17. Dezember 1999 19:01
> > An: pkormann@intern.datacomm.ch
> > Betreff: (PM) Lucent MAX 3030 & PM3 & MCPP ??
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are there any plans by Lucent to offer
> > MCPP between a PM3 and a Lucent MAX 3030 ??
> >
> > If we want to expand existing PM3 pools we are forced to
> > continue with PM3's as otherwise 2 channel ISDN connections
> > won't work anymore!
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > -
> > 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/>
> >
>-
>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/>
-
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/>