Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: (ASCEND) Quiescenting PRIs



On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Matt Holdrege wrote:

> Yes, I know the U.S. doesn't quite follow ITU. For ISDN, we follow the NI-2
> spec on PRI's. NI-2 is defined by the North American ISDN Users Forum along
> with BellCore. Again, what ANSI spec are you referring to? Where in the DMS
> PRI spec is this referred to?
> 
> Please give me a citation.
> 

Would you like me to program the code that will fix the TNT as
well.  I think I have given you more than enough information
for your engineering department to get moving on this.

You're really beginning to PISS ME OFF!!! This sounds like the
OLD ASCEND to which I used to run around in circles with.

How about :

	(1)	You call your engineer on site @ XCOM and speak with him
	(2)	Tell everyone there that I will start shipping
		TNT's back one per day till this is fixed
		starting Monday till this is fixed.

	(3)	And when they ask why - explain to the them
		you like gicing your customers a hard time!!!

Matt I'm not to sure you know who XCOM is, or about the godzillian
bugs we had work with you guys fixing over the past year.  I would
have thought by now, Ascend would have learned how to treat a customer
that has bought over 200 TNT's.

Let me tell you this - 

	THINK TWICE BEFORE YOU WANT TO PICK AN ARGUMENT WITH
	ME RELATED TO THE TELCO WORLD.  

2 - On top of each TNT going back daily - I'll eagerly await your
public reply of your apology.

Boy - you really got my goat.

Guess you made up my mind with something else, you'll be able
to ask you engineer o site how the NEW BAY 5000's are doing at
XCOM next week.  Let's see how much I have to fight with them.

NOW - Fix the goddam problem!

Shawn
slewis@xcom.net


> 
> At 09:41 PM 1/23/98 -0500, Shawn Lewis wrote:
> >The US does not follow the ITU standards, generally
> >the ITU comes up with a flavor, then Bellcore/ANSI
> >releases theres.
> >
> >For a channel to remain blocked, the host providing the
> >channel must provide the BLO every 4-5 minutes.  Lack of
> >this message with a good Level 2 on the circuit with D
> >Channel operational, an UBL will be sent to the receiving
> >CPE, which the TNT responds to with a BLA, thereby 
> >releasing the channel from blocking.
> >
> >Simple fix would be to put a state on that circuit as being
> >blocked, and not respond with BLA, but with a RESET OUT OF
> >SERVICE message.
> >
> >just my 2 cents.
> >
> >shawn
> >slewis@xcom.net
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Matt Holdrege wrote:
> >
> >> At 06:30 PM 1/23/98 -0500, Shawn Lewis wrote:
> >> >Q.931/SS7 Standards
> >> >
> >> >Please reference the "T" timers under 931/ISUP conversion
> >> >and standard default timers.
> >> 
> >> I know about ITU Q.931, but that has nothing to do with taking a channel
> >> out of service. What ANSI specs were you referring to?
> >> 
> >> Matt Holdrege		http://www.ascend.com	matt@ascend.com
> >> 
> >
> >
> Matt Holdrege		http://www.ascend.com	matt@ascend.com
> ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
> To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
> To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
> 

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