Subject: (usr-tc) v.92 info

From: Charles Sprickman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 08:55:51 +0000

Howdy,

While browsing about for more info on v.92 on the consumer side, I came
across this.  Commworks just isn't faring well here.  Cisco is already
shipping code???

http://808hi.com/56k/v92s.htm

And I assume we're still at a point where quads will NOT be supported?
Are there any other catches, like "you must buy hiper nmcs to load the new
code"?

Charles

| Charles Sprickman                  | Internet Channel
| INCH System Administration Team    | (212)243-5200
| [email-masked]                     | [email-masked]

-
 To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "[email-masked]"
 with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 15:06:45 +0000

Also sprach Charles Sprickman

>And I assume we're still at a point where quads will NOT be supported?

Yes, quads will not be supported...they haven't budged on that piece of
idiocy.

>Are there any other catches, like "you must buy hiper nmcs to load the
>new code"?

You hit the nail on the head.  You have to have at least HiPer NMCs to
run V.92.  I think it was already said that it is going to be a feature
enable key, and thus added cost as well.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Charles Sprickman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 21:03:56 +0000

Anyone know what these things price out to?

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/as/as5350/prodlit/as53_ds.htm

I'm trying to figure cost for replacing 10 T's of quads and 6 HiPer NMC's
vs. another dial product...

Charles

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 23:10:37 +0000

>I'm trying to figure cost for replacing 10 T's of quads and 6 HiPer
>NMC's vs. another dial product...

2, 4, or 8 spans?

And let me get back to work (Tues.) and I can give you ballpark pricing.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Lance Eves <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 12:42:34 +0000

A Cisco AS5301-CH with 48 ports (Cisco part # AS53-48-CH) would run you
about $17000.00 give or take.  You could move up to a AS5300 with 96
port and redundant power for about $32000.00.   This should give you a
ballpark figure.  

Lance Eves
KanOkla Communications
620-845-5500
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Charles Sprickman
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 1:59 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) v.92 info

Charles

On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Jeff Mcadams wrote:

> >While browsing about for more info on v.92 on the consumer side, I 
> >came across this.  Commworks just isn't faring well here.  Cisco is 
> >already shipping code???
>
> Yes, quads will not be supported...they haven't budged on that piece 
> of idiocy.
>
> >Are there any other catches, like "you must buy hiper nmcs to load 
> >the new code"?
>

> run V.92.  I think it was already said that it is going to be a 
> feature enable key, and thus added cost as well.
> --
> with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message.  For information

> on digests or retrieving files and old messages send  "help" to the 
> same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>

-
 To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "[email-masked]"
with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message.  For information
on digests or retrieving files and old messages send  "help" to the same
address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 14:15:28 +0000

Also sprach Lance Eves
>port and redundant power for about $32000.00.   This should give you a

Keep in mind that the AS5300 is different from the AS5350, though.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Mark Thornton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 23:20:49 +0000

Had a good talk with Tom from 3Com in my office last week. The V.92 upgrade
will not be an extra cost item other than the fact you must have a contract
to get the download. The quads apparently don't have the available space and
processing power to handle V.92, though if you want to work on it you can
figure it out and make a ton of money on the grey market. Not sure why the
requirement for the hipernmc but the old ones are too slow anyway for larger
chassis configurations. The primary reservation I have against paying for
support and upgrading has to do with 'end of life on the hiperarc's and
hipernmc's. 3Com is moving to faster processors, but the old ones should run
the same code base. If they make a public promise for continuing support for
the same codebase with an exception for processing power I will go with the
upgrade, otherwise, too much of my current investment is EOL.

BTW, when we talk V.92 we need to talk complete featuer sets. Some of the
other vendors have major caveats in their support in order to claim they
have it now.

Mark Thornton
San Marcos Internet, Inc
512-393-5300

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Mcadams" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) v.92 info

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 02:56:37 +0000

Also sprach Mark Thornton
>Had a good talk with Tom from 3Com in my office last week. The V.92
>upgrade will not be an extra cost item other than the fact you must
>have a contract to get the download.

Hrmm...ok...I was under the impression that it would be a feature enable
on the NMC...which I guess doesn't necessarily equate to added-cost, so
that doesn't absolutely prove my thoughts wrong, but it does make them
less likely.

>The quads apparently don't have the available space and processing
>power to handle V.92,

Space, sort of...there are so many obsolete protocols supported in the
quads that could be removed with no damage to their functionality that
its not funny (HST anyone?).  Not having enough processing power is a
bunch of hooey.  It takes less processing power to convert PCM samples
to data then it does an analog waveform.

>Not sure why the requirement for the hipernmc but the old ones are too
>slow anyway for larger chassis configurations.

Sure...I have a chassis with 8 DSPs on it with a 486 NMC...and its
certainly feeling it, but it is useable with it.  Once again, 3Com
EOL'ing a product for no good reason.

>The primary reservation I have against paying for support and upgrading
>has to do with 'end of life on the hiperarc's and hipernmc's.

Amen to that.  I don't even own a single HiPer NMC and they're already
being EOL'ed?  That's a joke.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Charles Sprickman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 05:29:36 +0000

On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Mark Thornton wrote:

> Not sure why the
> chassis configurations.

Depends on what you do with them.  Mine serve three purposes:

-monitoring scripts hit them, and scripts are very patient :)
-initial config (completely bearable, speedwise)
-software updates

That means I actually have hands-on "oh this is a tad slow" experiences
maybe twice a year.  I can live with that.

> The primary reservation I have against paying for
> hipernmc's.

Hello??  What's that?  I'm still getting over the quads being unsupported.
My HiPer DSP and ARC's still seem so new...  Is this definite?  I've not
heard anything about that.  Isn't this akin to Cisco dumping everything
but the 5800?

> 3Com is moving to faster processors, but the old ones should run

Weird.  I don't think you'll get a promise from them, their track-record
in this area is pretty grim.

They certainly are helping the decision-making process along pretty well.

Charles

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 16:13:01 +0000

>NMC's vs. another dial product...

List pricing that I have (and this may not be exact):

2 T1 ports - $20,500
4 T1 ports - $38,000
8 T1 ports - $67,000

Keep in mind that these are *list* prices, so apply your typical
discount to figure out what you'll actually pay.  My understanding is
that these prices include enough DSPs on the systems to run those ports
at max capacity.

Also keep in mind that these are Cisco's Universal Ports which means
they can do modem, fax, isdn, voice, TDM switching and format
conversion, clear channel data (or any T1 fraction thereof), you name
it.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Mark Thornton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 16:42:59 +0000

OK, time to get some facts...

Does the Patton equipment fully support V.92 at this time? Modem on-hold,
fast-connect, fast-upload, and V.44? The last info I can find indicates only
modem on-hold and fast connect are implemented.

Does the Cisco implementation still not support fast-upload? What about
V.44? When is it to be released, if ever?

What about Lucent/Ascend?

The last word I had on the 3Com code was that it would support all four in
the initial release. Anyone willing to give us a heads-up?

Do we have any feedback on modem compatability and connectivity issues?

On the financial side, a first look at the math show it to be a dead heat
between completing the required upgrades to my chassis along with support
contracts vs. new Patton equipment when I look at annual costs for the next
few years. I haven't yet gotten info on the other vendors.

Mark Thornton
San Marcos Internet, Inc
512-393-5300

-

---

From: Paul Farber <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 18:00:42 +0000

v.92 will probibly follow the kflex/X2/v.90 path.... everyone has thier
own blend initially, then as they see the base grow add in whatever comes
next.

Since there are no v.92 modems available in quantity (or being shipped
with PC's) I would wait at least till 4q 01 to even try and get code on
your RAS.

-- 
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[email-masked]
Ph  570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545

-