- USR-TC - mailman.xmission.com

RE: [USR-TC] I'm back and I have some ideas.
by Joel - Fox Computers 28 Jul '02

28 Jul '02

Steve, Do you have a place to host it? I can provide a site with FrontPage access and although I'm no web designer, I can set up a page to collect info into a database. (I do web and database programming, I just don't do the graphics/design) Lemme know if you'd like any help. Joel -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Rivera [mailto:steverivera@wrca.net] Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 9:42 PM To: usr-tc(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: [USR-TC] I'm back and I have some ideas. So I see we have that list moving again. Thats great...And I was able to make some good contacts when I was out there. So from here I want to put together a link on my home page for people to sign up for this non-profit, no-fee associationasically a compalint group that I can use to open the doors a little more at 3com. I think this can do it. THey can handle the big accounts that seem to be their concern and I will combine the rest into a single voice. do you have any scripts or ideas for a page that can collect standard info? company name, address, phone, fax, tC1000 ports, specified in quad, hiper and the other cards. Letstalk to today. I'd like your input. I have some other ideas for service that I would like to run past you. Afterall you are the main tech I would want to use. If thats ok with you. _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

1 0

RE: [USR-TC] X2 High-Power Constellation???
by Joel - Fox Computers 28 Jul '02

28 Jul '02

So maybe by setting it you could reach 56K, but be breaking the rules? hmmm... might be fun to try just to see if it makes a difference. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Mcadams [mailto:jeffm@iglou.com] Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:56 PM To: usr-tc(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [USR-TC] X2 High-Power Constellation??? Also sprach Joel - Fox Computers >Going through DSP settings - anyone know what "X2 High Power >Constellation" means? Just curious, has a fun-sounding name, but it >seems to be disabled on my DSP's. I suspect its the x2 trellis coding constellation that allows x2/k56flex/v.90'esque protocols to actually reach 56kbps of speed, rather than the 53kbps that they are limited to thanks to FCC power regulations on phone lines. I hadn't ever noticed the setting, but based on the name...that would be my guess. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm(a)iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456 _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

1 0

RE: [USR-TC] wasnt the exact version i wanted to send but...
by Joel - Fox Computers 28 Jul '02

28 Jul '02

Here you go.. POUTERS - Pissed Off Users of Total Control Experiencing Rotten Support What do you think? Eh, Probably not, but I couldn't resist. :-) -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Rivera [ mailto:steverivera@wrca.net] Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:01 PM To: usr-tc(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: [USR-TC] wasnt the exact version i wanted to send but... Hey folks, to follow up on that last email Any input will only help. Suggestion for the name for the group would be good too (need a catchy acronym). If you think its worthy of discussion among all of us we can use the list. If not I will collect the suggestions and comprise a list that I will post to the list for a final vote. steverivera(a)wrca.net ....everyone needs love, even the little guys :) _______________________________________________ USR- TC mailing list USR-TC(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

1 0

wasnt the exact version i wanted to send but...
by Stephen Rivera 28 Jul '02

28 Jul '02

Hey folks, to follow up on that last email Any input will only help. Suggestion for the name for the group would be good too (need a catchy acronym). If you think its worthy of discussion among all of us we can use the list. If not I will collect the suggestions and comprise a list that I will post to the list for a final vote. steverivera(a)wrca.net ....everyone needs love, even the little guys :)

1 0

RE: [USR-TC] Software Agreement- RE
by Joel - Fox Computers 28 Jul '02

28 Jul '02

Steve (and everyone) - I'm not the arguing type - and I don't necessarily mean to "bash" 3com, which is why I haven't said anything to this point. Just making discussion here. BUT - here's the reality - from what I've seen, the 3Com people are here, but don't care to participate. I believe it's not their job to help, but then why are they here? Apparently it is actually the job of the 3Com police to make sure that although we are allowed to discuss, they have to make sure we don't get out of line. I've been on several mailing lists where the participants discussed issues of much greater legal consequence than a simple piece of firmware. There were no spies monitoring the discussion to keep everyone in line. Which is why I was a little disappointed in some things that occurred recently. One simple request for an old firmware version results in Mr. Goodman posting the entire 3Com software license. Then, I get a phone call from someone selling support contracts who says they were referred to me by 3Com (which I purchased by the way). That's followed a couple days later by a phone call from 3Com's Corporate Security Department calling to protect 3Com's "Intellectual Property". I hope he fealt like a shit when I told him I already purchased a service contract. Since firmware, old or new, is sometimes required to make their hardware work like it was intended, I see it quite different than I do software, such as TCM. I know, I know, 3Com would argue with that - I'm just saying that I disagree. Remember - I did pay for the support so I could get the firmware, but I'm just stating my opinion, which is quite different from being unwilling to abide. If I had any intention of not "following the rules" I would have been smart enough to keep my posts here anonymous. And since any effort to improve the functionality of the 3Com hardware requires a service contract, where does it end? What if someone decides that it is "Intellectual Property" to know how to configure a unit for DOV calls? The 3Com police will be watching to make sure no one talks about it without paying the fee. In fairness, I bought 3Com hardware because my previous experience (with modems, nic's, switches, etc) has all been very good. And I'm keeping my 3Com hardware, which is why I bought the support. But COME ON - I understand how people feel when they buy what they think is good hardware, only to find something doesn't work and they have to spend a ton of additional cash for what probably amounts to 5 minutes of help. Here's another way to look at this: If most manufacturer's sell defective goods, they are normally, and sometimes legally, expected to fix what's wrong. Virtually every software publisher puts out free patches and bug-fixes when issues are found in their software, whether it's a $40 package, or a $40,000 package. When 3Com sells a modem that doesn't work right because the drivers are buggy, they provide free driver updates via the web site. But when Total Control hardware is found to be defective (due to bugs in firmware) they only fix them if you pay an additional fee. Why doesn't that sound right? Basically, I think there are probably several people (here and elsewhere) who feel a little duped. Expecting top-quality hardware that 3Com is known for, we buy in, expecting the same kind of support offered by other manufacturers, including 3Com in regards to other 3Com hardware. Then, when something doesn't work exactly right, they find out they are held hostage by 3Com's policies in regards to Total Control related software or firmware. You can argue against the Cisco argument by saying their practice isn't their policy, but if a lack of enforcement is the way they do business, then that's their policy, written or not. So what's my point? My point is that I found that 3Com's "Intellectual Property" is freely available in the public domain, and I certainly could have obtained almost anything I wanted without buying the service contract or paying anyone anything. I only did so because I, personally, want to do this right. But the 3Com people out there that are reading this list should be aware that monitoring a discussion like this is the biggest waste of effort one could imagine. I think someone else said it, but I'll repeat, they would be wiser to put the effort into developing a better product than policing a small number of people and thinking it's making a difference. Again, just my opinion. Thanks to everyone who offered to freely help out with my problems. Joel FYI: Another thing to consider as I talk to the guys at 3com is... As much as we would like to see responses from 3com techs on this list its just not their job. 3com techs are available at the commworks user forum. Many of the responses that come from the 3com employees are done on their own time and we should appreciate that...So be easy on them. As I have been informed thats why they havent been adding in on your tech questions. They dont appreciate the email beatings they take for 3com...They are employees not owners or decision makers for the items that are complained about on this list. So lets keep that in mind when they do take the time to help us out.

12 22

DSP Data
by Joel - Fox Computers 27 Jul '02

27 Jul '02

Was looking at the Performance Monitor on the DSP cards. Does anyone know what's normal for "Timing Offset in Parts per million" or the "Carrier offset in hertz"?? Mine seem kinda far out there, running at 50000-65000 typically for the timing, and anywhere from 100-65000 for the Carrier. Anyone know what this means? Good, bad, or nothing at all? Thanks, Joel

1 0

starting up a otal control
by Shahrooz Sharghi 26 Jul '02

26 Jul '02

Hi list As I had told before I have bought a total control 1000 with following features: 1* NMC card 1* Netserver Pri Card 14* quad Analog modem. I have several problems for configuring it: 1- Only internal users I defined in netserver could connect (radius users can't connect) 2- After a few seconds dial in users disconnect. 3- A dialup user can't ping netserver card (in the short time that is connected) 4- tcm can't communicate with the NMC. error massage:"the device not responding". SNMP string is correct and ip address of NMC ping in the network. (only one time it connected and report me a list that is attached with this email. Would you please help me somehow? Best Regards Shahrooz U.S. Robotics 17-Slot Chassis 3COMDevice4 <192.168.120.142> 1 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC BBA6NUA6 1AL000 2.0.0 0 0 0000000110001000 4.1.1 2 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC BBA6NUAP 1AL000 2.0.0 0 0 0000000110001000 4.1.1 3 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC BBA6NU3V 1AL000 2.0.0 0 0 0000000110001000 4.1.1 4 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC B3T7SDW5 08Z000 3.0.0 0 0 0000000110001000 6.1.6 5 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC B8P681OM 08Z000 4.0.0 0 0 0000000110001000 6.1.6 6 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC B1T76OX2 08Z000 4.0.0 0 0 0000000110000100 5.10.9 7 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC BBP796FA 08Z000 4.0.0 0 0 0000000110001000 5.8.6 8 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC 15659880 000793 0.2.0 0 0 0000000110001000 5.5.7 9 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC B1L75RUL 08Z000 3.0.0 0 0 0000000110001000 5.6.7 10 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC BAR6LASA 08Z000 3.0.0 0 0 0000000110001000 5.6.7 11 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC B2477YJE 1AL000 2.0.0 0 0 0000000110001000 5.6.7 12 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC B1G7505W 1AL000 2.0.0 0 0 0000000110001000 5.6.7 13 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC B1G7505I 1AL000 2.0.0 0 0 0000000110001000 5.6.7 14 USR Quad V.34 Digital-Analog Modem NAC B3B69ZKC 10Q000 2.0.0 0 0 0000000110001000 5.6.7 16 USR ISDN NETServer NAC BA27TR9L 17C000 7.0.0 16384 4096 0000000000000000 3.7.41 17 USR Network Management Card BAU6LTI7 11I00000 3.0 4096 2048 0000000000000000 4.1.3 1 USR Quad Modem Analog NIC 0 0 0000000110001000 1.1.0 2 USR Quad Modem Analog NIC 0 0 0000000110001000 1.1.0 3 USR Quad Modem Analog NIC 0 0 0000000110001000 1.1.0 4 USR Quad Analog Managed International Modem NIC 0 0 0000000110001000 1.1.0 5 USR Quad Modem Analog NIC 0 0 0000000110001000 1.1.0 6 USR Quad Modem Analog NIC 0 0 0000000110000100 1.1.0 7 USR Quad Modem Analog NIC 0 0 0000000110001000 1.1.0 8 USR Quad Modem Analog NIC 0 0 0000000110001000 1.1.0 9 USR Quad Modem Analog NIC 0 0 0000000110001000 1.1.0 10 USR Quad Modem Analog NIC 0 0 0000000110001000 1.1.0 11 USR Quad Modem Analog NIC 0 0 0000000110001000 1.1.0 12 USR Quad Modem Analog NIC 0 0 0000000110001000 1.1.0 13 USR Quad Modem Analog NIC 0 0 0000000110001000 1.1.0 14 USR Quad Modem Analog NIC 0 0 0000000110001000 1.1.0 16 USR High Speed Ethernet (with V.35) NIC 16384 4096 0000000000000000 17 USR Ethernet NIC ???????? ?? 0 0 0000000000000000

2 1

3Com isn't all bad...
by Jeff Mcadams 26 Jul '02

26 Jul '02

Well...in response to the recent resurgence of 3Com bashing. I'd like to point out one way that they are "doing the right thing." Unfortunately, its a tad bit off-topic here, but I want to be fair to 3Com. http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/020722/200207221331000684_1.html 3Com to Drop Pro Forma Accounting Following Questions Over 4th Quarter Unfortunately, this means that 3Com will likely have a tougher time "meeting numbers" and their stock price might suffer (more). Alas, it does sometimes hurt to "do the right thing," and I applaud 3Com for taking this step. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm(a)iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456

2 1

RE: [USR-TC] Software Agreement- RE
by CQuinn＠solunet.com 26 Jul '02

26 Jul '02

>We don't have that many ports, but you're basically correct. The thing >that *really* makes them bad though is that it doesn't distinguish >between *types* of ports. For example, a *majority* of our ports are >still quad cards, which are no longer supported, but we still have to >pay for them as if they were. :/ Jeff, Quads are still supported with contracts, at least in a troubleshooting and hardware replacement sense until December 1 2003. Your contract reseller should be allowing you to get replacement on them. If they are not allowing you coverage on them, you should not pay for those ports. I can only speak for my company and when we sell a contract if the customer is not covered on EOL cards he/she is not charged for EOL cards in their contract. Christopher Quinn Solunet Technical Support -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Mcadams [mailto:jeffm@iglou.com] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 12:02 PM To: usr-tc(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [USR-TC] Software Agreement- RE Also sprach Todd Bertolozzi >Now....from my understanding, and this is a MAJOR point the 3com >contracts work a bit differently then what is being presented on this >list. Please....someone tell me I'm wrong, but unless they changed >their policies without me knowing I believe the contracts cost a little >more then what you all are thinking: >The price of the contract is determined based on the total number of >ports terminating on 3com gear in your WHOLE network. Now...I don't >know about everyone else on this list but just a rough guess of the >number of ports we have would be around 40,000 ports on 3com gear. >So....40,000 / 48 ports = 833.33 x 2600 = $2,166,666.00 We don't have that many ports, but you're basically correct. The thing that *really* makes them bad though is that it doesn't distinguish between *types* of ports. For example, a *majority* of our ports are still quad cards, which are no longer supported, but we still have to pay for them as if they were. :/ -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm(a)iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456 _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

2 1

Moving from Channelized T1s to PRI
by Kevin Hemsley 26 Jul '02

26 Jul '02

Are there any caveats or issues that I need to be aware of when converting a chassis from CT1s to PRI? (HiPerARCs and HiperDSPs) Other than the switch type, are there any other config changes required? Also, what performance differences, if any, are there? I have heard PRI connections are a little faster. Thanks for any input, Kevin. ------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Hemsley Systems Engineer Microserv Computer Technologies, Inc. kev(a)ida.net NF7J

1 0