Hi,
I'm testing an E1 with EM signaling. Some of the problems I'm running
into are the following:
1) if I try to configure any channel above channel 15, I start
getting a multiframe alignment error on my telco test equipment. So I
have my zaptel file only configured for 15 channels, like
Paulo Mannheimer wrote:
Hi,
I'm testing an E1 with EM signaling. Some of the problems I'm running
into are the following:
1) if I try to configure any channel above channel 15, I start
getting a multiframe alignment error on my telco test equipment. So I
have my zaptel file only configured
But there were some ppl who did run EM on E1. It was on the list, search
archives.
regards
Martin
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Steve Underwood wrote:
Paulo Mannheimer wrote:
Hi,
I'm testing an E1 with EM signaling. Some of the problems I'm running
into are the following:
1) if I try to
Do people actually do the *ANI*DNIS* thing on E1s? I've never seen that.
E1s are a real pain for anything but PRI or SS7. There is so little
standardisation. A place I used to work has a substantial team turning
out new signalling protocol state machines for each customer of its E1
muxes.
Maybe if they'd write the PRI stack in C instead of making a state machine
they woun'd need to make adjustments so often.
regards
Martin
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Steve Underwood wrote:
Do people actually do the *ANI*DNIS* thing on E1s? I've never seen that.
E1s are a real pain for anything but PRI
I think you have something backwards. PRI on E1 is great - 100% standard
throughout the world, apart from some very old leftovers. Its the CAS
stuff which needs endless new state machines. They really do need state
machines. Write them in C, or do as we did (draw them graphically in
Autocad,
Yeah, I thought you were talking about PRI on E1 :)
Martin
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Steve Underwood wrote:
I think you have something backwards. PRI on E1 is great - 100% standard
throughout the world, apart from some very old leftovers. Its the CAS
stuff which needs endless new state machines.
