Subject: [USR-TC] NFAS and Qwest

From: Randy Cosby <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 17:36:46 +0000

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

---

From: Todd Bertolozzi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:48:03 +0000

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: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Randy Cosby
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 1:36 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [USR-TC] NFAS and Qwest

Randy Cosby
Vice President
InfoWest, Inc.

P: 435-674-0165 x 11
F: 435-674-9654

_______________________________________________
USR-TC mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

---

From: Andy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 03:57:01 +0000

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)

---

From: Andy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:56:23 +0000

A telco switch engineer privately told me the following.

> 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.

---

---

From: Charles Sprickman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:50:19 +0000

> > 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

---

From: Randy Cosby <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:03:04 +0000

> 
> > 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.
> 

Was this possibly related to the HiperTRAX products from a few years
ago?

---

From: Andy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:40:06 +0000

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.

---

From: Andy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:41:16 +0000

There's a distinct lack of people jumping up to say this will work.  :)

> plenty of folks doing the "IDSN over CT1" dance