Re: Dial out solution [7:51230]

2002-08-12 Thread Benjamin Pierce

We replaced our Shiva LanRover with a Cisco AS5300. 
We then purchased a software product called DialOut EZ
that allowed for clients to do a remote reverse telnet
session and associate it with a com port.  It was
actually very easy to set up and it was recommended by
cisco so the support is there.

Thanks,
Benjamin Pierce
--- "neil K."  wrote:
> Hi All,
> Guys I am currently using a Shiva modem pool for
> dial out, Is there a Cisco
> solution for this.The Shiva is not working upto our
> expectations.
> Will the Cisco Access Servers or a cisco 3640 with
> modem card be able to do
> the same.
> 
> Any help will be highly apprecisted.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> neiL
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


__
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=51265&t=51230
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Confusion: Channelized and Unchannelized T1 [7:47949]

2002-07-02 Thread Benjamin Pierce

I am assuming that this is refering to a
Point-to-Point T1 Circuit.  If so, the telco refers
to
the circuit as unchanelized because they are not
breaking off any channels for you, You are doing
this
yourself with a mux.

Thanks,
Benjamin Pierce
> --- "Steven A. Ridder"  wrote:
> > I think a channelized T1 sends 193 bit frames as
> > well.  8 for each channel
> > plus 1 for timing = 193.
> > 
> > All T1's are channelized, otherwise it would have
> to
> > be some sort of
> > byte-synch communication, which isn't plausible.
> > 
> > I think the tech you spoke to is incorrect as
> well.
> > 
> > 
> > ""John Neiberger""  wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Just when I thought I understood the T1 world
> > pretty well we've run into
> > >  a situation that is thoroughly confusing me.
> > >
> > > I was under the impression that channelized T1
> > services used 24
> > > timeslots.  I call that 'channelized' because it
> > has 24 distinct
> > > 'channels'.  It's my understanding that
> > unchannelized T1 doesn't use the
> > > 24 timeslots and instead sends one giant 192-bit
> > frame.
> > >
> > > At one of our locations we are muxing voice and
> > data traffic onto a
> > > single T1.  At each end we split off certain
> > channels to a router and
> > > other channels over to the PBX.  To do this,
> > wouldn't the T1 *have* to
> > > be channelized, since we're separating the
> > channels at the CSU/DSU?
> > > According to our provider, that circuit is
> > unchannelized.  If a circuit
> > > is truly unchannelized, how would the CSU/DSU be
> > able to accurately
> > > split the T1 into two separate streams based on
> > channel information?
> > >
> > > To be more clear, let's say we have the CSU/DSU
> > configured to split
> > > channels 1-12 to the router and 13-24 to the
> PBX. 
> > This splitting
> > > function is based on the assumption that
> channels
> > exist on the incoming
> > > T1.  If they don't exist and we have one giant
> > frame instead of 24
> > > smaller frames, how could this possibly be
> > working??
> > >
> > > Yowza...my head hurts.
> > >
> > > John
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47949&t=47949
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Which WIC?????? [7:45379]

2002-05-29 Thread Benjamin Pierce

I believe the WIC1-DSU-T1 will work for what you are
trying to do.  I believe this card will handle both
T1/PRI and E1/PRI.  You may want to check with someone
to make sure though, as I live in America and do not
have much experience with E1.

Thanks,
Benjamin Pierce

--- "M.C. van den Bovenkamp"
 wrote:
> Stuart Pittwood wrote:
> 
> > I need a WIC for a Cisco 1720 series router which
> will allow me to use a
> > PRI Interface (Europe/UK).  I have been told by
> one supplier that one
> > doesn't exist and I should upgrade to a 2600 or
> 3600 (which I'm happy to
> > do if necessary) another supplier has told me that
> there is one but he
> > cannot source the part number.
> 
> As far as I can see, the first is right. There
> doesn't seem to be a PRI
> WIC. Looks like you need a 2600 and an NM-1CE1B
> (UTP) or NM-1CE1U
> (coax).
> 
> But I'm willing to be corrected :-).
> 
>   Regards,
> 
>   Marco.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45415&t=45379
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]