Qwest is going to be offering PRI in one of our service areas soon. We have always used chan-t1 on our total controls up to now. I've read through some of the comments about the hassle of coordinating NFAS with the phone company. If we can convert our lines to PRI, we really don't save much money unless we can run NFAS. Has anyone had experience with Qwest and NFAS? Is it worth the hassle? Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc. P: 435-674-0165 x 11 F: 435-674-9654
We have had a few NFAS groups in our days and I believe we've gotten that down to 1 group of like 8 PRI. Personally I found the lack of understanding and service on the telco's side regarding NFAS to not be worth the cost savings. I've never dealt with Quest but unfortunately with other telco's I spent a significant amount of time explaining to the tech's what NFAS stood for when a problem arouse. Let alone getting some sort of resolution. The bigger the NFAS group....the bigger the hastle typically. Todd -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Randy Cosby Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 1:36 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [USR-TC] NFAS and Qwest Qwest is going to be offering PRI in one of our service areas soon. We have always used chan-t1 on our total controls up to now. I've read through some of the comments about the hassle of coordinating NFAS with the phone company. If we can convert our lines to PRI, we really don't save much money unless we can run NFAS. Has anyone had experience with Qwest and NFAS? Is it worth the hassle? Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc. P: 435-674-0165 x 11 F: 435-674-9654 _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
I'm probablely not describing this accurately, so I'm looking for a refresher and experience from anyone with these setups. 56K-Only ISDN ============= I heard long ago that digital switch service (non-PRI DSS T1 trunking) can be configured with a TC so you can support 56K-Only ISDN channels. Many of our POPs are in rural areas without PRI service, so this compromise would be a perfect solution for those seeking a digital link. D-Channel ISDN ============== This has a special name that I don't recall, but the concept is very cool. It uses the d-channel for both control and limited IP traffic. It provides an always-on / personal server concept that allows the customer to stay on 24/7 to receive realtime email, instant messages and simple remote service access without tying up two more larger channels. The benefit is similar to on-demand bonded service - where if you are sending enough to fill the first 56/64K channel, the second one comes up and bonds. But this takes it a step further. The customer starts with their small d-channel and sets up an IP session. And only turns up the regular b-channels as needed. I believe it can also be restricted to the d-channel only for cheap service and small transmissions like credit card transactions. :) Most here are disenchanted with 3COM's lack of support and vision, but this topic could breath some new life into our legacy hardware. Please add anything you know or can think of. Thanks --- Andy Dalrymple XMission Telecom Manager 801.303.0810 (8/8/02)
A telco switch engineer privately told me the following. On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Andy wrote:
56K-Only ISDN =============
The industry calls this "Fractional PRI". Customers can use 'digital switch service' to set this up on their end, although he doesn't know any customer that has done it.
D-Channel ISDN ==============
Last he heard, this standard failed because the D-Channel control information (although very very small) was not protected in the protocol. If the IP data caused a single control token to error out, the connection drops. He is unaware if this was eventually solved. I look forward to any extra insight on these two ISDN layouts. ---
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Andy wrote:
56K-Only ISDN =============
While it didn't work on the 3Com stuff at the time (quads), there were plenty of folks doing the "IDSN over CT1" dance where we used to co-lo our dial stuff. ATT/TCG was the carrier, switch was a 5E. The only successful ones I knew of were those running the portmaster 3's. Just another datapoint to digest. :) Charles
The industry calls this "Fractional PRI". Customers can use 'digital switch service' to set this up on their end, although he doesn't know any customer that has done it.
D-Channel ISDN ==============
Last he heard, this standard failed because the D-Channel control information (although very very small) was not protected in the protocol. If the IP data caused a single control token to error out, the connection drops.
He is unaware if this was eventually solved.
I look forward to any extra insight on these two ISDN layouts.
---
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
There's a distinct lack of people jumping up to say this will work. :)
56K-Only ISDN =============
While it didn't work on the 3Com stuff at the time (quads), there were plenty of folks doing the "IDSN over CT1" dance
D-Channel ISDN ==============
Last he heard, this standard failed because the D-Channel control information (although very very small) was not protected in the protocol. If the IP data caused a single control token to error out, the connection drops.
He is unaware if this was eventually solved.
Was this possibly related to the HiperTRAX products from a few years ago?
I printed the TC HiPer TRAX data sheet, and it appears to court VISA (credit card), synchronous and X.25 communication - in addition to the regular features. Nothing along the lines I'm looking at it seems. On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Randy Cosby wrote:
Was this possibly related to the HiperTRAX products from a few years ago?
participants (4)
-
Andy -
Charles Sprickman -
Randy Cosby -
Todd Bertolozzi