(ASCEND) 7.0.3/7.0.4 is cool

["willp2" <willp2@dreamscape.com>]

Howdy folks,

New Rockwell Code 2.098
------------------------------------------
I am still evaluating 7.0.4 on several production Max 40xx's.

I found something _really_ interesting in my syslog:

Mar 14 20:11:18 XXX ASCEND: modem 4:4: Modem Code Crash
Mar 14 20:11:58 XXX ASCEND: modem 4:4: Successful Code Redownload

and:
Mar 15 15:27:45 XXX ASCEND: modem 4:4: Modem Code Crash
Mar 15 15:28:25 XXX ASCEND: modem 4:4: Redownload Failed #1
Mar 15 15:29:06 XXX ASCEND: modem 4:4: Successful Code Redownload

Maybe I'm not the only one who has seen individual modems go bad on various
sized Series56 cards.

I was very excited when I saw that 7.0.3 and 7.0.4 has new Rockwell code.
Since v.90 was released, all max releases had 2.084 rockwell firmware.
The 7.0.3 is the first release of new modem code since last year.  It is
rockwell 2.098 (whatever that means.)

However, I was able to avoid RMA'ing a modem card by upgrading a unit that
had a card that kept "disappearing" on bootups from 7.0.1 to 7.0.4.  (7.0.3
is nothing but trouble with NTI/NFAS.)

It looks like the code that handles modem failures is far more resilient
than ever before.  I even saw one entry like this:
Mar 15 16:54:39 XXX ASCEND: modem 4:4: Modem Code Crash
Mar 15 16:55:20 XXX ASCEND: modem 4:4: Redownload Failed #1
Mar 15 16:55:23 XXX ASCEND: modem 4:4: Bad/No response to AT**: #2
Mar 15 16:55:26 XXX ASCEND: modem 4:4: Bad/No response to AT**: #3

This modem (4:4) was then moved to the disabled list: which is fine for us,
having 1 D-channel per unit frees up one modem, and having a mix of ISDN
customers on the same hunt group as modems helps to reduce risk of having
too few available modems.

As far as I'm concerned about 7.0.4, I am happy so far.  This improvement in
the modem code is making me very happy.


WinModems
------------------
By the way, do all ISPs have major problems with customers with el-cheap'o
WinModems?  I'm talking about: Phoebe, LT-WinModem, no-name HSP's, Aztec,
etc.

Since we recently upgraded from channelized T1's to PRI's, we are now seeing
trouble reports from people whose phone line is _marginal_ at supporting 56k
speeds.  Their modems never tried to attempt k56flex or v.90 before we
upgraded, and now their modems are trying for 34,000 (k56flex) or some
bizarre 29.3k v.90 speed and totally and completely crapping out.

I understand that a WinModem is basically a modem without a datapump.

What I do not understand is why we never have any trouble when we go out and
buy these crapola modems and pass them around the technicians to try out
from their homes.

Product Question
----------------------------
What is the general opinion of the Pipeline 130 for customer premise
equipment?  We've been trying out the Compatible Systems routers for cheap
CPEs and have been totally and completely disappointed.  Having to blast out
the OS and config _multiple_ times to bring a router back to life is _not_
what I enjoy spending a week doing, just getting NAT frigging up and alive.
A word to the wise: avoid Compatible Systems routers like Typhoid carriers.
I think I'd enjoy Typhoid in comparison.

Anyways, the applications I'd be asking of a pipe130 would be:
fractional/full T1 with PPP encapsulation talking to Bay Networks routers
limited packet filtering.
-no- data compression (ala Stac) across the link.
NAT: either full or single IP.

BTW- can a Pipe130 support IDSL backup in addition to ISDN backup?
This would be a neat feature actually.  The IDSL backup wouldn't incur
per-minute charges.  And here in Bell Gigantic land, with T1's dropping like
all get out and near-criminal ISDN rates, an IDSL backup would be pretty
phenomenal.  If anyone's done this before, please post.  It seems like a
pretty cool idea.

-Will


++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>