Subject: Re: (usr-tc) V.92

From: Cheryl Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:17:28 +0000

Thanks for the info on the date. I think the 1000 have a different midplane
as opposed to the older TC Chassis? It seemed to have a totally different
architecture. I thought I read that somewhere on 3com/Commworks page. I
haven't looked into it too much though.

-----Original Message-----
From: Curt Shambeau <[email-masked]>
To: USR <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) V.92

>> Well its been a while since I have been on the list. I save the
>> messages and go back and read whenever possible. Seems as though some
>> modem manufacturer's are supposively now selling v.92 modems. My
>> question is, has anyone seen any software for the TC Chassis that
>> supports the new feature? I am just looking ahead. We have had a few
>> customers ask if we supported it but not to many at this point. Anyone
>> heard any news on this lately? I have this strange feeling this is only
>> going to be offered on the new line of TC 1000.
>
>If you mean it won't be offered on Quad Modem, I would guess the same.
>But TC1000 is really just a new name for all the total control gear out
>there.  It really isn't anything new.
>
>As far as news from 3COM... My rep has said he thinks general release of
>v92 code will be sometime June/July.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Curtis V. Shambeau  |  [email-masked] |  Sr Vice President |
>|  CoreComm, LTD, formerly Voyager.net and ExecPC - Wisconsin Office    |
>|    "Those who can't laugh at themselves leave the job to others"      |
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>-
> 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.
>

-
 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:30:06 +0000

Also sprach Cheryl Johnson
>Thanks for the info on the date. I think the 1000 have a different
>midplane as opposed to the older TC Chassis? It seemed to have a
>totally different architecture. I thought I read that somewhere on
>3com/Commworks page. I haven't looked into it too much though.

The TC 1000 is the chassis with the integrated fan tray.  The old school
chassis (without the integrated chassis) are basically compatible with
what's now the TC 1000, but lower capacity (fewer timeslots on TDM,
slower packet bus I believe, etc.) but otherwise is basically the
same...cards are swappable between the two chassis etc.

There is now (I think) also a TC 2000 that's a wholy new product, and to
the best of my knowledge, can't swap cards with the TC 1000 or older
non-integrated-fan-tray chassis.  I haven't ever messed with a TC 2000
at all.

Re: v.92, v.44, and v.59 on quads...if 3Com/Commworks doesn't offer an
upgrade to it, they're going to get an earful...won't be the first
earful they've gotten from me, and probably won't be the last either.

I don't think IgLou is unusual in this respect, but a significant
majority of our dial-in modems are still quads.  For 3Com/Commworks to
forsake this installed base, while being par for the course for
3Com/Commworks, isn't just shooting themselves in the foot, its more
tantamount to unloading a full clip on full automatic into their own
foot.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Ronald Kushner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:51:11 +0000

> non-integrated-fan-tray chassis.  I haven't ever messed with a TC 2000

The TC-2000 junk is much bigger than the Bay Networks 5000MSX chassis,
and uses blades just like the 5000MSX did. Just the TC-2000 is much
higher capacity than Bay ever had in the 5000 chassis w/5399 cards.

I'd have to say the TC-2000 was designed with AT&T or AOL in mind.
Nothing most people with TC-1000's would be interested in.

-Ron

-

---

From: Curt Shambeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 00:07:31 +0000

> Nothing most people with TC-1000's would be interested in.

Actually, the TC-2000 is designed with VOIP and transaction calls in mind.
It is being released as a VOIP box, and later will act as a RAS box.
I don't care who you are, there aren't too many POPs large enough to
warrant the need of a TC-2000 for RAS.

Our largest POP is in Milwaukee, and I could almost fit the whole city's
worth of dial in on one single TC-2000.  I would never do that for reasons
of equipment failure in any case.

The first chassis is the control chassis.  You can (I believe) fit 7 DS3's
worth of lines on it.  You can then link 5 additional chassis to the first
control chassis.  Each of them can have 14 DS3's worth of lines.  That's
2156 DS1's or 51,744 lines (in the case of CHT1).  And that all fits in 2
standard 19" racks.

Quite impressive, but not all that realistic for just about every ISP out
there.

The TC-1000 with DS3 ingress card and Quad-DSP cards is a much more likely
scenario for 99% of the POPs out there, including AOL and AT&T.

I wouldn't mind playing with one just for the fun of it, though... <grin>

-

---

From: Dale Hege <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:55:59 +0000

> tantamount to unloading a full clip on full automatic into their own

The really sad thing is I was told by my vendor this afternoon that v.92
will only be supported on the 96Port dsps. Also that the chassis with fan
tray will not support the 96Port cards you need to buy the TC1000
Enhanced chassis. :(

-Dale

-

---

From: Mike Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:28:43 +0000

> tray will not support the 96Port cards you need to buy the TC1000

Well, that would sure piss me off...  I wasn't planning on buying any of
those anytime soon.  I figured the codebase for the 24 port vs 96 port
cards is similar enough that they should both support it.  Quads I can
kinda-understand...  it's not a big deal to us as we just pulled our last
Quads out of service last week (hey Jeff, want a pair of Dual PRI cards?)
but I can see where that would annoy folks.  I think they've said they're
not going to do v.92 on the Couriers either (which would kinda explain why
it's not on Quads either) -- still seems a bit odd tho.

Odder still is that nobody at 3Com seems to want to give a definitive
answer here.  This has been asked before and nobody ever got a good
answer.  I'm not in a huge rush for v.92 (though I DO wanna see v.59) but
it'd be nice to know what to tell customers that ask.

Mike Andrews * [email-masked] * [email-masked] * http://www.bit0.com
VP, sysadmin, & network guy, Digital Crescent Inc, Frankfort KY
Internet access for Frankfort, Lexington, Louisville and surrounding counties
www.fark.com: If it's not news, it's Fark.  (Or something like that.)

-

---

From: Ronald Kushner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:43:25 +0000

> tray will not support the 96Port cards you need to buy the TC1000

Sounds like someone is trying to sell you some hardware. I'll personally
drive to Chicago and burn down the 3Com building if the HiPer DSP cards
do not support V.92.

-Ron

-

---

From: "Andrew (NetFlash System Administrator)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 03:30:51 +0000

Just to have my say,  All v.90 modems and our equipment should support the
v.92 protocol.  Our modems are digital, and we are only changing a protocol,
our modems are flash capable, so there shouldn't be a issue other then price
for the modem code update.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ronald Kushner
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:37 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) V.92

-Ron

-

-

---

From: Lance Eves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 04:09:12 +0000

Is there not anyone besides myself that has the 96 port cards?  As far as I
can tell they integrate in just fine with everything else.  Of course there
is the code upgrade....  The newer chassis has a bigger and badder (or is
that more bad) ARC and NMC, and I believe that the backplane is also
enhanced.  I played around with it all when I got the new chassis.  It all
seems to play nice with one another in one of the older chassis that I have.
Of course when it was all said and done, I put all the pieces back in the
enhanced chassis and put it into production.  I have the 96 port and 7-24
port DSP cards in the chassis and it is all working like a charm.

Lance

> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:37 PM

-

---

From: Curt Shambeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 04:34:30 +0000

> tray will not support the 96Port cards you need to buy the TC1000

No way... Your vendor is wrong.  The code for the 24-port card and the 96
port card is the same, with only minor changes.  I doubt VERY much that
they would not release v92 for the standard HDM.

I have no idea about the Quad modems however.  I'm sure it could be done,
but I'm not sure how much R&D money 3COM will stick into quad modem cards.

-

---

From: mark ross <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 04:38:40 +0000

Hi
By "newer chassis" are you talking about the one with the Intergrated
fan tray ? or is there something else thats newer now ?

How may t-1's can you cram into a chassis until you start running up
against I/O bandwidth of the packet bus ??

I am still using 4 of the old chassis with quads and netserver cards

just wondering ??

see ya...

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 05:09:41 +0000

Also sprach mark ross
>against I/O bandwidth of the packet bus ??

A *lot*.  I believe I remember being told 2Gbps, but that the backplane
(midplane really) was totally passive wrt the packet bus, so upping the
cards talking on the packet bus let's everything talk faster.  Depending
on the equipment you're using, the TDM bus may be the limiting factor.
If you're running your ingress lines into a NIC going straight to a NAC,
ie, not having to be shipped across the midplane at all, then you're
fine...if it has to go across the midplane though, you might end up
being limited by the timeslots in the TDM bus.

>I am still using 4 of the old chassis with quads and netserver cards

This is what 3Com/Commworks needs to realize...there's a *HUGE*
installed base of older equipment out there, and every time they EOL a
product so quickly after the End Of Sales of that product, they piss off
their customers even more.  3com/Commworks has a nasty habit of doing
this...NETServer PRI, 486 based NMC, now quads and dual-pri cards...not
to mention the absolute insanity of their support contracts...even after
3 years of screaming and yelling of people on this list.

Now 3Com/Commworks doesn't even officially monitor this list anymore.

I was wrong on one thing though, this isn't 3Com/Commworks unloading a
full clip on full automatic into their foot, this is dropping a 500 lb.
*bomb* on their foot!

Get a clue 3Com/Commworks, you've watched your stock price go *nowhere*
for 3 years now (if you factor out the influence of Palm for a short
time before the spin-off...fairly reasonably done since Palm was *never*
really a very integral part of 3Com), perhaps, just maybe, you should
consider the possibility that its because you're regularly screwing your
customers over!

-

---

From: Mark Thornton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 06:35:26 +0000

We need to get some clarification on the status of the V.92 and everything
else. If there is no forward growth on this product I need to begin
replacements now, as we need to expand and I am not going to put money into
new product that they will not support. The second thing I need to do is
begin going through my old Boardwatch mags and emails and compile the
evidence for a lawsuit. We were promised this hardware base was the future
and fully upgradeable. I do believe the promise was made in print and
contained text such as V.90 and 'other features'.

As another thread, does 3Com maintain any presence for support in any public
location? Even evil Microsoft provides support for many products via lurkers
on newsgroups. I was promised a new proposal for support contracts that last
time this debacle came up when we needed code but I have yet to see it. I
talked with at least six different people at 3Com who all acknowledged the
problem and indicated a solution was forthcoming. Obviously they lied. I
think 3Com is onlky building product for AOL and other ISP's of that level.
I see absolutely no commitment to support a local ISP such as mine. I regret
not having made the move to a Cisco based solution at our last major
upgrade. The support from Cisco is phenominal. They have pulled my ass out
of the fire on three seperate products very quickly, in one case building a
software release to patch a bug that paralyzed our DSL router. My
recollection of 3Com support was repeated calls, bad music, clueless techs,
too much money, pissed of customers, more clueless techs, then finally after
having blown my temper and said some really choice things being forwarded to
a tech with a clue who resolved the problem. My current plan with them is
for software only and even that was a real pain in the ass to get set up.
This is a company that doesn't want to make money. There is no other
explanation for their behavior. If the provide excellent support and code
base we grow and buy more of their product. Don't they understand that?
Instead, they are spending development time on cable headend equipment that
is of now value to me at all. It says a lot about what market and which
customers they really want.

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

-

---

From: Lists <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:37:02 +0000

> product so quickly after the End Of Sales of that product, they piss
> off their customers even more.  3com/Commworks has a nasty habit of
> doing this...NETServer PRI, 486 based NMC, now quads and dual-pri
> cards...not to mention the absolute insanity of their support
> contracts...even after 3 years of screaming and yelling of people on
> this list.

I must admit, if there's no V92 for Quads this will almost surely see us
convert our 1000 or so ports to Cisco.

We have no interest in HiPerDSP cards - they are too dense for us.  Quad
cards suit us *just*fine*.

We have an interest in HiPerARC server cards, but they're just too damn
expensive.  Unlike in the US, I don't believe there have been any
particularly attractive trade-up promotions here (if there were, 3COM kept
them all to themselves).

> full clip on full automatic into their foot, this is dropping a 500 lb.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

The only thing that keeps us with 3COM is the modems.  If they drop
support/features for the Quads we have then we have no reason to stay with
3COM.  If Cisco had USR modems (AS5100 springs to mind) we'd be gone
already.

-

---

From: Dale Hege <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:40:39 +0000

I called 3com and asked them about this. They told me that the 24 port
dsps will support v92 sometime this summer and the chassis will support
the 96 port cards. :) Sorry, I didn't ask about the quads.

-Dale

-

---

From: Sheldon Koehler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:33:49 +0000

I just got off the phone with 3Com and the Quad cards will NOT do v.92. The
24 and 96 port cards will.

Sheldon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Hege" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) V.92

-

---

From: Lists <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 05:37:55 +0000

> I just got off the phone with 3Com and the Quad cards will NOT do
> v.92. The 24 and 96 port cards will.

This is precisely why I'm talking to Cisco about trading our 900 or so
ports for Cisco gear...

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 05:52:04 +0000

Also sprach Lists

>This is precisely why I'm talking to Cisco about trading our 900 or so

Might I suggest that you let folks at 3Com/Commworks know this...and not
through this list...as I mentioned, they don't officially monitor this
list anymore.

Might I suggest that you go to 3Com's web page and look at the executive
bios and pick the relevant ones to send email to about your reasons.

I'll point out that 3Com email addresses take the form of
[email-masked], so pretty much anyone, from the bottom to
the top can be reached by email that way.

A couple that I'm not sure are on there that you might want to include
as well:

Irfan Ali, President of Commworks (a 3Com company), [email-masked]

and if it concerns an issue (as I suspect it at least partially does)
with support contracts,

Al Huefner, [email-masked]

I'm unsure of the "official" title of Mr. Huefner, but I understand he
is the mastermind behind the support contract setup at CommWorks, and
previously in the Carrier Systems Group of 3Com.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Lists <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:45:10 +0000

> Might I suggest that you let folks at 3Com/Commworks know this...and
> not through this list...as I mentioned, they don't officially monitor
> this list anymore.

I've already told them this.

I e-mailed 4-5 of their people.  You can guess how many replies I
got.  That's right - zero.

Did I hear right recently that AOL are migrating away from 3COM NAS gear?

-

---

From: Mike Wilker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:26:20 +0000

Does Cisco still have a low-density unit?  Has it been confirmed that they
will support V.92?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lists" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) V.92

-

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:45:02 +0000

Also sprach Mike Wilker
>Does Cisco still have a low-density unit?  Has it been confirmed that
>they will support V.92?

They've got a 1U unit now that does 2 PRI, dual 10/100 ethernet, and 2
v.35 ports (seperate from the t1/e1/pri ports)  The DSPs are pretty
generic as far as their capabilities...so it would only be a software
upgrade to support v.92 (and others) with them.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Mike Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:45:45 +0000

They have the new AS5350, a two-PRI fixed-config unit.  (Think "PM3
replacement".)  I've been told by several people at Cisco that v.92 is a
sure thing.

-

---

From: Randy Cosby <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:16:28 +0000

>From http://www.808hi.com/56k/v92s.htm

8-Dec-00 - V.92 servers - Cisco has revealed plans for V.92: There will be
no V.92 support for AS5200 servers.  3600, AS5300 and AS5800 servers with
Mica modems will support V.44 compression, Modem-on-Hold, and Quick Connect
around April, 2001 - there will be no support for V.92 PCM upstream for Mica
modems. AS5350, 5400 and 5800 servers using NextPort CSMv6 modems will have
V.44 compression, Modem-on-Hold and Quick Connect around March, 2001, and
V.92 PCM upstream support is projected for this modem card between July and
September, 2001. Note - AS5300's with older Microcom modems will not support
V.92 or V.44. [Wording revised 15-Dec-00]

They don't site sources for this information and I haven't found anything on
Cisco's site yet.  Anyone?

Randy

> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Mike Andrews
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 9:39 AM

-

---

From: Curt Shambeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:29:47 +0000

> no V.92 support for AS5200 servers.  3600, AS5300 and AS5800 servers with

I find it funny that people want to switch to Cisco because they will not
support v92 on the Quad modems, yet Cisco is doing the same thing to their
customers by not supporting the AS5200 and AS5xxx with MICA modems.

Of course, they can't do an easy software upgrade, but who knows that the
future holds.  Will everyone switch back to 3COM/Commworks when Cisco
doesn't support the AS5300 on the next upgrade?

There has to be someplace to draw the line.  Personally, I'd rather see
3COM put their R&D effort into the HiperDSP and QuadDSP.  And yes, I still
have Quad modems in my network... A whole boatload.

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:43:45 +0000

Also sprach Curt Shambeau
>I find it funny that people want to switch to Cisco because they will
>not support v92 on the Quad modems, yet Cisco is doing the same thing
>to their customers by not supporting the AS5200 and AS5xxx with MICA
>modems.

>Of course, they can't do an easy software upgrade, but who knows that
>the future holds.  Will everyone switch back to 3COM/Commworks when
>Cisco doesn't support the AS5300 on the next upgrade?

>3COM put their R&D effort into the HiperDSP and QuadDSP.  And yes, I
>still have Quad modems in my network... A whole boatload.

Please...don't even *try* to rag on Cisco for not supporting old
hardware.  I just checked this out to be sure of my numbers, but Cisco
is not only still *supporting*, but is still *selling* their little 2500
routers.  This product design is over 7 years old now.  Cisco seems to
provide hardware and software support for products that have reached
end-of-sales for 2 or 3 *years* before they're end-of-life'd.  Compare
this to 3Com that will put a product in end-of-sales within a few years
of announcing it, and will end-of-life a products within 6 months of
end-of-sales.

Cisco may not be perfect on supporting their older equipment, but at
least they *try*...you can load 12.x IOS versions on the 2500's, TCS 4.0
doesn't have a version of code for the quads.

I'm honestly amazed that people still seem to be proud to work for 3Com.
If I worked there, I think I'd be walking around with a paper bag over
my head because of their treatement of their customers...particularly
their long-term customers.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Mark Thornton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:12:30 +0000

There also is a problem comparing the Cisco modems to the 3Com modems. Cisco
has used modems in the past that were a combination of hardware and
programable software. There is no way to use software to fix hardware that
is deficient. However, it was always my understanding that the quads were
entirely software based. There may be a realistic limitation due to a
limited number of programable nodes in the DSP's or insufficient memory to
host the required code. If that is in fact the reason for the lack of
support then they should say so. The reality is that we suspect they just
don't want to even work on the code for those modems, not that it can't be
done. Maybe they don't see it as a financially viable option? What would be
the money we would be willing to pay for a code upgrade on the quads to
avoid buying new hardware? What is the effort they are willing to spend to
keep us in the 3Com product and off the competitor's products?

Mark Thornton

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Mcadams" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) V.92

-

---

From: Curt Shambeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:21:09 +0000

> hardware.

I'm not *trying* to rag on Cisco.  My point was that people are all up in
arms about v.92 not being supported on the Quad modems, and are threatening
to go buy Cisco RAS gear, when Cisco is not supporting v.92 on older
equipment either.  Isn't there some irony in that?  I sure think so.

I'm not always thrilled with 3COM, but in this case, I *personally* feel it
was not a bad decision to stick v92 on HDM & newer equipment.  The code
base for the quad modem is very ugly, and would no doubt entail a LOT of
R&D to get it up to speed on v92, v44, v59, and whatever else may need to
be modified.

Heck... Is there even enough space for all that code on the quad modems?
Back a few years ago I remember them having to pull support for things like
v.terbo to fit the new v.90 code into Couriers.  Didn't they pull it from
quad modem support as well, because of code size??

-

---

From: "Lon R. Stockton, Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:06:56 +0000

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Curt Shambeau wrote:

> My point was that people are all up in

It's more than just them not supporting the v.92 on the quads; that's
just another straw on the camel's back. I don't own any quads and am
still considering switching (except my plan is Ariel cards in a linux
box rather than Cisco gear). My bitch is about the dismal level of support
which is consistantly getting worse (unless, of course, the customer
has more money than brains). It's the feeling/observation that 3com
no longer gives a shit about the smaller ISPs who built their business
for them because they're spending too much time as a wannabe-NorTel,
chasing the business of the big telcos. Telcos have no problem with
extortionate service contracts, as those costs can simply fuel another
rate increase.

-

---

From: Lists <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 05:30:48 +0000

> I'm not *trying* to rag on Cisco.  My point was that people are all up
> in arms about v.92 not being supported on the Quad modems, and are
> threatening to go buy Cisco RAS gear, when Cisco is not supporting
> v.92 on older equipment either.  Isn't there some irony in that?  I
> sure think so.

Our point is that if we have to spend money upgrading, we'll probably
spend it on Cisco after the treatment we've had from 3COM.

We stay with 3COM because it does the job and a change would be
expensive.  If we have to spend money...

-