Sasa Milic wrote: > > You can also connect DTE to DTE, as well as DCE to DCE, via > null-modem > cable. So, analogy with FXO/FSO is not correct.
I can connect two telephones together too, with a telephone line simulator. Also, to connect two routers back-to-back, you have to configure one to be DCE. My point? The analogy is still "correct" even if there are a few "yes, buts" that you can add to it. Anyone can add "yes buts." Coming up with the good idea to start with is the hard part. :-) Priscilla > > Sasa > > Chuck's Long Road wrote: > > > > Someone smarter than I made the following statements about > FXO / FXS, in > > order to help me understand real world connectivity. > > > > That person said to think of FXO / FXS as something analogous > to DTE / DCE. > > > > That is, DTE connects to DCE ( and visa versa ) and that FXO > connects to FXS > > ( and visa versa ) > > > > In other words, an analog telephone set is an FXO device, and > therefore > > plugs into an FXS port. The FXS port provides the signaling > to the FXO > > device. > > > > Similarly, a PBX, or a CO switch, for that matter, is an FXS > device that > > provides signaling, and therefore plugs into an FXO port. > > > > This seems to fit in with what I know - that you connect a > router to a PBX > > or to the telco CO switch via an FXO port, and you connect an > analogue fax > > or telephone into a router FXS port. > > > > Any comments? Reasonable way to think of things? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Chuck > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54351&t=54331 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
