HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rob@polestar.facl.mcgill.ca (Robert Macfarlane)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: isdn "supermodem"
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:00:35 GMT
Reply-To: poster
Organization: McGill University

In article <1993Jan15.195205.22085@advtech.uswest.com>  
huntting@advtech.uswest.com (Brad Huntting) writes:
> Has anyone considered how dificult it would be to make an ISDN "modem"
> which could interface with analog modems (V.32bis, V.32, V.22) and
> speak the usual standard protocols for compression and error correction
> (V.42, V.42bis, LAP-M, MNPx).
> [...] 
> I'm looking for a way to easily upgrade modem pools to isdn without
> having to advertise a new phone number.  Could this be done by routing
> isdn data calls to a second hunt group.  Can a  5ESS (our local
> centrex) do this?  Or could the TA forward all non-data calls to the
> analog lines.
> 
Here's an arrangment I would like to see:

 customers      | POTS |          C.O.        | ISDN link |  my house

  end user modem ------ modem --|-------------|
  end user modem ------ modem --|             |
  end user modem ------ modem --| multiplexer |         +---------------+
  end user modem ------ modem --|             |=========| my BBS server |
  end user modem ------ modem --|             |         +---------------+
  end user modem ------ modem --|-------------|

I don't see how we could eliminate the modems, but we should be able to  
move them to the c.o., and have only one 2B+D line from the c.o. to the  
host, no?

Does anybody know what one would need to put in my box labelled  
'multiplexer?'  Of course, we would also need some sort of demultiplexing  
ISDN software/hardware in the host.  In theory, one should be able to  
multiplex 8 v.32bis lines (8 x 14.4 = 115.2) into one 2B+D connection.   
That would sure cut down on phone bills!

I have no idea what this would take.  Just an idea....

Rob Macfarlane
McGill University
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps)
Subject: Re: 23B+D (PBX) & 2B+D (Home)
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 23:48:44 GMT

In a previous article I wrote:
>You wouldn't want to make the T1 23B+D to do this -- too many muxing
>problems.  Instead, you'd want to order the T1 to run ESF/B8ZS, DACS 
>out the DS0s to _24_ residences as leased lines and drive each DS0 
>as a BRI OPX on the PBX.  

On second thought this won't work either, a full 2B+D BRI won't fit onto 
a DS0.  If you want your PBX to run the phone like an OPX as you suggest, 
this becomes a much trickier problem than it appears.  First, in your
original plan you were using 23B+D to drive 23 * 2B+D, which is a mismatch in
both the number of B channels supported and the bandwidth of the D
channels (23 * 16K = 368K BRI vs. 64K PRI).  That would imply that the
CO was performing a switching function between the BRI and PRI channels,
so what you've got is not really an OPX.

Somebody please tell me if I've overlooked something, but the more I think 
about this, the more it sounds like you would experience a lot of problems 
letting the PBX provide your "dial tone", as it were.  You really need the 
CO to handle the switching, multiplexing, and concentration issues for you, 
which is to say that you *can't* run these like OPXs off your PBX.  
-- 
Brent Capps                          | 
bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff)    | Quis corriget correctores ipsos?
bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) |
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: ketil@edb.tih.no (Ketil Albertsen,TIH)
Subject: Re: Subaddressing (was: ISDN/analog interfacing)
Organization: T I H / T I S I P 
Posting-Front-End: Winix Conference v 92.05.15  1.20 (running under MS-Windows)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:46:56 GMT

In article <C1GM74.Czq@sranhd.sra.co.jp>, nisimura@sran233.sra.co.jp (Tohru 
Nishimura) writes:

>For example, when you call an ISDN number with ordinal analog telephone
>(with/without ISDN), and there is no voice equipemnt at called side, no
>ringing occurs;  Synthesising (woman) voice would answer; "There is no
>equipment you can talk with.....", even if "dataline" ISDN TA or ISDN/IP
>card is attached at called side.  This is a Japanese implemetation. I
>don't know other countries' implementation.

It sounds as if you are running some timeout-counter in the NT1 to detect
that none of the connected units responds. Of course that is OK, but the
conclusion you draw by letting some automatic answering machine say that
"there is no equipment you can talk with" is a little too general, isn't it?

Each TE can decide not to answer, even if it is there and capable of 
answering, e.g. based on data supplied (or not supplied) in the user data
field, based on the caller ID, the requested high-level info type or
any other information in the setup message. So a lack of response does
not necessarily mean that the equipment isn't there
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Subaddressing (was: ISDN/analog interfacing)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:36:41 GMT

In <1993Jan27.123439.21824W@lumina.edb.tih.no> ketil@edb.tih.no (Ketil Albertsen,TIH) writes:

>In article <C1HpEy.5Go@sranhd.sra.co.jp>, nisimura@sran233.sra.co.jp (Tohru 
>Nishimura) writes:

>>[...] ISDN exchange can detect which
>>type equipments are attached to customer ISDN busline, and ISDN exchange
>>subsystem will answer as "There is no equipment you can talk with....."
>>IN THE CASE OF caller is ordinal analog telephone system.

>How can the exchange know? Functionality depends on the hardware and 
>software loaded into my PC at the moment. I may unplug the speaker and 
>microphone from my PC and delete the driver program for the voice 
>functions, but leave the file transfer and email software running; I 
>will not report that to the exchange. My ISDN interface card is the 
>same, so there is no electrical change that can be detected on the busline.

>The only way presence of voice (or other kinds) of functionality can be
>detected is by asking my PC (by sending a SETUP) message: Do you WANT to
>accept this incoming voice call? If my PC responds with an ALERTING
>message, then the exchange may assume that I do have the necessary
>equipment and software. But the converse is NOT true: I may have it,
>but not WANT to utilize it at the moment. Eg. I may want to remain
>quiet to calls from telemarketing companies. I may want to remain quiet
>to most calls (only accept calls from selected callers) after 11 p.m.

>If there is any way that the exchange can detect which functionality
>my PC-with-ISDN-card realizes in its software, then I haven't read the
>ISDN recommendations close enough. Also, I will be scared. What else
>does the exchange know about my PC software??  :-)

Don't lose any sleep :-), the transformer coupling in NT1 would make
any electrical detection extremely difficult, if not impossible.
If the exchange wishes to offer such a service, you would have to
provide them with the details of what is on the passive bus, but
then as you say, how would they know whether it was turned on or
off (unless you are maintaing an active logical LAPD connection).

I imagine the switch has enough to do without this and this is
why the SETUP message has the ability to convey so much protocol
information.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps)
Subject: Re: isdn "supermodem"
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:20:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.094938.264@indyvax.iupui.edu> imhw400@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.160035.7443@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, rob@polestar.facl.mcgill.ca (Robert Macfarlane) writes:
>> Here's an arrangment I would like to see:
>> 
>>  customers      | POTS |          C.O.        | ISDN link |  my house
>> 
>>   end user modem ------ modem --|-------------|
>>   end user modem ------ modem --|             |
>>   end user modem ------ modem --| multiplexer |         +---------------+
>>   end user modem ------ modem --|             |=========| my BBS server |
>>   end user modem ------ modem --|             |         +---------------+
>>   end user modem ------ modem --|-------------|
>> 
>> I don't see how we could eliminate the modems, but we should be able to  
>> move them to the c.o., and have only one 2B+D line from the c.o. to the  
>> host, no?
>
>The telco will be most pleased.  They can make money from that modem bank. 
>Keep an eye on them, to make sure that they plan to charge the right person.

This has been discussed here before, the BOCs aren't legally allowed to
offer this service at the present time.
-- 
Brent Capps                          | 
bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff)    | Quis corriget correctores ipsos?
bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) |
From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: isdn "supermodem"
Organization: Xenitec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:55:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.160035.7443@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, rob@polestar.facl.mcgill.ca (Robert Macfarlane) writes:
> Here's an arrangment I would like to see:
> 
>  customers      | POTS |          C.O.        | ISDN link |  my house
> 
>   end user modem ------ modem --|-------------|
>   end user modem ------ modem --|             |
>   end user modem ------ modem --| multiplexer |         +---------------+
>   end user modem ------ modem --|             |=========| my BBS server |
>   end user modem ------ modem --|             |         +---------------+
>   end user modem ------ modem --|-------------|

You are describing "Modem Pooling", a feature built in to most ISDN COs.
Until recently the telephone company was forbade to get involved in this
but are starting to now.  It is pretty simple really, picture a modem
with the RS-232/V.35 side cabled into an ISDN TA.  You place a call to the
modem and are now talking into an ISDN TA.  Now make a second call to the
end user of ISDN (your BBS).  In a proper implementation your call could be 
placed directly to the BBS (ISDN line) and the switch would know that you 
required conversion and place the call path through a Modem/TA pair.

> I don't see how we could eliminate the modems, but we should be able to  
> move them to the c.o., and have only one 2B+D line from the c.o. to the  
> host, no?

The modems could be eliminated by using a "supermodem" at the BBS.  This is
a term coined in this newsgroup, don't expect to find one too soon, although
we have now heard reports of something similiar from Japan and the UK.

There is a commercial product which does something similar now.  The company
is Primary Access, they make an access server which connects to the telco
via T1 or PRA.  The interface between this box and your various equipment
is anything like T1, V.35, RS-232, analog TIE, etc.  In the application you
put forth you would have your telephone lines come in on a T1 to the Primary
Access box.  You would connect to the box with RS-232.  The box would handle
converting the V.32 (V.22, etc) incoming to the asynchronous character stream
which your modem would normally provide.

I am told that Compuserve use them for just this.

(Disclaimer: all the above is from talking to folks at trade shows.  I know
 nothing more about this company than what was said above.)

The fact that a product like this exists now should be enough proof that the
"supermodem" is both doable and marketable.  I'll buy one!



-- 
Vance Shipley 
vances@xenitec.on.ca         vances@switchview.com         vances@ltg.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: ketil@edb.tih.no (Ketil Albertsen,TIH)
Subject: Re: Subaddressing (was: ISDN/analog interfacing)
Organization: T I H / T I S I P 
Posting-Front-End: Winix Conference v 92.05.15  1.20 (running under MS-Windows)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:19:17 GMT

In article <scott.728100851@labtam>, scott@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Scott Colwell) 
writes:

>>>For example, when you call an ISDN number with ordinal analog telephone
>>>(with/without ISDN), and there is no voice equipemnt at called side, no
>>>ringing occurs;  Synthesising (woman) voice would answer; "There is no
>>>equipment you can talk with.....", [...]
>>
>>It sounds as if you are running some timeout-counter in the NT1 to detect
>>that none of the connected units responds.
>
>The timeout happens at the exchange.  It sends a setup message to any
>devices on the S i/f, they can either decide to ignore it or they can
>respond with an alerting message (meaning that they are 'ringing the phone').

I assume that most of what is conceptually done in the NT1 is actually done
by the local exchange. But whoever does the timeout, a technically (more) 
correct response message would be something like "There is no equipment
that is willing to talk to you...". It may be there, but for some reason
choose not to talk. (But I do accept a less accurate message, though,
if it makes non-engineers less confused!)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: babineau@bnr.ca (Michael Babineau)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Protocol analyzer PC card
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:46:42 GMT
Reply-To: babineau@bnr.ca (Michael Babineau)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

Does anyone know of any other analyzers, other than the ISDN tel/scope,
which have support for Northern Telecom's Digital Test Access?
The info I have on the ISDN tel/scope indicates that it supports a 
S/T loop interface? I am looking for an analyzer which can also interface
to PCM30/DS1. 

Michael

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|Michael Babineau           | BITNET: babineau@BNR.CA                    |
|Bell Northern Research Ltd.| UUCP  : ..!uunet!bnrgate!bmerh812!babineau |
|Ottawa, ON. CANADA         |         ..!psuvax!BNR.CA.bitnet!babineau   |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: Jamey Maze <jnm@ornl.gov>
Subject: Connecting a Macintosh to ISDN?
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A78AD76BDF018039@baloo.ctd.ornl.gov>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 26 Jan 93 11: 56:27 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:56:42 GMT

I know this has been asked before, but if someone will answer again, I'll
be sure to save the message...

What are my options for connecting a home Macintosh to ISDN? The idea is
to do TCP/IP via PPP back to my office. Also, what are the most popular
choices for ISDN-to-Ethernet IP routers (e.g., Telebit)? I need a
solution that can handle multiple calls simultaneously. I'm using
Morningstar's PPP in the office now. Users make connections to a terminal
server, login, and are automatically connected to the DECstation running
MST PPP. Once they login to the DECstation, the SLIP or PPP daemon starts
and they're off and running (a script makes this tolerable). Is there an
easy way to stay with the MST PPP solution, but put some sort of ISDN
"terminal server" solution in front of it? (I've not asked my terminal
server vendor when or how they'll support ISDN.)

Thanks!
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: boogman@vptt.ch (Jan Boogman vt6)
Subject: Protocol analyzer PC card
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Swiss PTT Research and Development Department
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:40:22 GMT

I'm preparing an integrated test environment for testing the load 
performance of digital PABXs. To monitor the protocol on PRI and BRI (at S- 
and T-reference point) I need protocol monitors and I'm looking for a PC- or
preferrably Mac-based solution. Until now I heard of only *1* product that 
suits our needs (HP 4957PC , but only PC). As I mentioned above, I prefer the
Macintosh, so: 

Does anybody know of a protocol analyzer board to put in a Mac?

Swiss specifications conform very well to CCITT Q.921/Q.931 and ETSI NET 3/5.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

-- Jan Boogman

Swiss PTT Telecom	     |	voice: 	+41 31 62 98 66 
Research and Development     |	fax:	+41 31 62 57 47
Subscriber Equipment FE66    |	email:	boogman@vptt.ch
3000 Berne 29		     |	X.400:	C=ch/ADMD=arCom/PDMD=vptt/  
Switzerland		     |		O=gd/S=boogman
From: tcain@brtph87.bnr.ca (Tom Cain  WB8OUE)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Newbie Q : 2B+D
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:18:11 GMT
Organization: BNR Inc. RTP, NC

In article <C13MMo.404@fulcrum.co.uk> graeme@fulcrum.co.uk (Graeme Hodgson) writes:
>This is probably a FAQ and I'm sorry for asking it (BTW when will the
>FAQ be posted next?) but I'm not clear on what the 2B+D service is...
>
>(1) Configuration? 2 x 64kbit + 1 x 16 kbit = 2B+D?
      That's correct.
>(2) Can the B channels be used for anything or just speech?
      They carry 64kbps data.  The terminal equipment encodes the voice,
       video, data, or other random bits the user may wish to put on it! 
       The line must be correctly provisioned by the telco to carry
       the various bearer capabilities.  (3.1khz audio (speech), 7khz
       audio, 56kdata, 64kdata, 64k restricted data)
>(3) Is it the end user who decides whether the D channel carries
>    data or signalling information?
      The D channel always carries signalling for the b channels.  Packet
       data can also be muxed onto the d channel, but, it must be 
       provisioned as such by the telco.

-- 
Tom Cain  WB8OUE                             tcain@bnr.ca
disclaimer: i don't speak for nobody!
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.isdn:1236 comp.sys.hp:15311
From: rolandm@kapp-coburg.de (Roland Morgenroth)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn,comp.sys.hp
Subject: isdn link germany/usa
Keywords: isdn
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:49:55 GMT
Followup-To: comp.dcom.isdn
Organization: Kapp & Co. Coburg, Germany


i am looking for a direct isdn link from germany to boulder/colorado.
we are using hp9000/720 workstations want to buy the hp isdn card J2104A or
another product (bintec).

which isdn service providers are available over there?

what is the isdn speed in the us? (56/64kb)?

how much are the costs per month in the us?

has anyone experience with such a direct link germany/usa?

----
   Roland Morgenroth              email:rolandm@kapp-coburg.de 
   Kapp & Co, Callenberger Strasse 52-58, 8630 Coburg, Germany 
   tel:+49(0)9561/866-371               fax:+49(0)9561/866-103
From: txd@ESD.3Com.COM (Tom Dietrich)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Low cost ether/isdn brouters (was PC-NFS PPP Serial/ISDN driver wanted)
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:07:44 GMT

wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) writes:

>>Maybe bridging is the right answer for Appletalk, OSI, and so on.  In
>>some cases, bridging may make sense for IP.  But bridges are not a
>>universal solution.

I know I'm gonna regret this, but I couldn't read this anymore...

On low speed links (64Kbps and below) bridging is going to be a
problem from network to network. The background traffic (broadcast and
multicast) tend to take up enough bandwidth to make "real" traffic too
slow to use. I'm talking about networks that have more than 10 nodes
on each side of the bridge. Routing IP, OSI, IPX, XNS, Appletalk phase
II is generally a better solution in a low speed WAN environment.

I've spent a lot of time working with customers who try to save the
cost and complexity of a router by installing a bridge. Most have
regretted it. 

>Not to start a war or anything, but I'm curious why do folks build
>bridges as opposed to routers.  Is it to save the cost of writing the
>code to do the TCP/IP hacking or is it that they would need much more
>hardware to support the computional horsepower needed to unravel the
>upper level protocol and then wrap the data-packet back up?

The cost of producing a router is greater than a bridge. There are a
lot more decisions to be made in a routing situation, and multiple
protocols make it worse. Bridges are simpler to make, install and
administer. There are tradeoffs.



*********************************************************************
Thomas E. Dietrich                   e-mail: txd@Able.MKT.3Com.COM
Marketing Engineer                       Phone:(408) 764-5874
3Com NSD Product Marketing                 FAX:(408) 764-5002
5400 Bayfront Plaza, P.O. Box 58145
Santa Clara, Ca. 95052-5166
*********************************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: gclar00@nx05.mik.uky.edu (garland clark)
Subject: ISDN in GTE land
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:04:06 GMT


I have been trying to find out the availability of ISDN here in 
GTE Southland (Lexington, KY). You know simple questions like if 
and when. I have asked everyone from the repairman to the local 
marketing department. All I get is silence and dumb blank stares
as they ask: "What's that??". Although it doesn't sound promissing
somebody somewhere must know something. Does anybody have any suggestions  
as to who to contact? ..thank you...
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: pbachman@scott.skidmore.edu (peter bachman)
Subject: Re: ISDN in GTE land
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:44:21 GMT

Find out what kind of switch you have for your exchange.If you have a5%ESS with generic 8 and an ISLU, you are pretty mucn in the
ballpark.If you don't have this, or equivalent, ask them when?

Peter
Usual disclaimers.
.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: ketil@edb.tih.no (Ketil Albertsen,TIH)
Subject: Re: Subaddressing (was: ISDN/analog interfacing)
Organization: T I H / T I S I P 
Posting-Front-End: Winix Conference v 92.05.15  1.20 (running under MS-Windows)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:34:33 GMT

In article <C1HpEy.5Go@sranhd.sra.co.jp>, nisimura@sran233.sra.co.jp (Tohru 
Nishimura) writes:

>[...] ISDN exchange can detect which
>type equipments are attached to customer ISDN busline, and ISDN exchange
>subsystem will answer as "There is no equipment you can talk with....."
>IN THE CASE OF caller is ordinal analog telephone system.

How can the exchange know? Functionality depends on the hardware and 
software loaded into my PC at the moment. I may unplug the speaker and 
microphone from my PC and delete the driver program for the voice 
functions, but leave the file transfer and email software running; I 
will not report that to the exchange. My ISDN interface card is the 
same, so there is no electrical change that can be detected on the busline.

The only way presence of voice (or other kinds) of functionality can be
detected is by asking my PC (by sending a SETUP) message: Do you WANT to
accept this incoming voice call? If my PC responds with an ALERTING
message, then the exchange may assume that I do have the necessary
equipment and software. But the converse is NOT true: I may have it,
but not WANT to utilize it at the moment. Eg. I may want to remain
quiet to calls from telemarketing companies. I may want to remain quiet
to most calls (only accept calls from selected callers) after 11 p.m.

If there is any way that the exchange can detect which functionality
my PC-with-ISDN-card realizes in its software, then I haven't read the
ISDN recommendations close enough. Also, I will be scared. What else
does the exchange know about my PC software??  :-)

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn