- USR-TC - mailman.xmission.com

RE: [USR-TC] Software Agreement- RE
by Joel - Fox Computers 26 Jul '02

26 Jul '02

I imagine, and it's just a guess here, that the per-port fee is much less when you have thousands of ports. They still pay a lot, but probably not even 1/4th of the per-port price you pay when you have only 48. Joel -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Mcadams [mailto:jeffm@iglou.com] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 11:02 AM 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

1 0

RE: [USR-TC] Software Agreement- RE
by Meng Tsai 26 Jul '02

26 Jul '02

Hi, My personal view, You all have great suggestion and precise fact toward 3Com's attutide on taking care of the small ISP. I have seeing the same topic come up every year, or 6 months. People in this list still have the same opinion as 3 yrs ago, so as 3Com. We are the customer who decide to pay and buy their equipment in the 1st place. It is like the marriage in real life. One party decide to go for the marriage but also settle his/her mind to change the other party's behavior in the afterward life. Think about who is to blame here. Sorry, I just can't refrain myself not saying above. Wish we all well. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Mcadams [mailto:jeffm@iglou.com] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 10:19 AM To: usr-tc(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [USR-TC] Software Agreement- RE Also sprach Ronald Kushner >Jeff Mcadams wrote: >> Actually, threats to buy Cisco is *exactly* what will get things >> accomplished. >Why make threats? Like Nike says, just do it. You're right, of course. Just making *empty* threats won't accomplish anything either. Which is why I have been open and honest on this list about demo'ing the Cisco gear...things move slowly around here (oi...one of my complaints about working at IgLou), but we are moving towards purchasing Cisco access server gear to replace the 3Com. >I never really bitched too loudly about the contracts, I just voiced my >dissatisfaction of their software policies with my pocketbook. Indeed...ultimately, that's the only reason that 3Com will change their errant ways, if they lose customers. The reason that I have been vocal about it because I had always hoped that 3Com would wake up to the fact that they're pissing off a significant number of their customers and change their ways before *I* had to make the jump. I felt the more noise that I made about the possibility of us switching, the more weight it would give...but as Steve pointed out, I am just a small fry in the overall scheme of things. I do it anyway thinking maybe I'll be the straw that broke the camel's back, but knowing that the chances are slim. >There used to be a time where the Cisco modems had issues with about >15% of new users, but these days it's not even 1/2 of 1 per cent. The >only advantage 3Com had has been closed substantially by Cisco. That's nice to hear about the Cisco actually...that had been my one point that I had been unsure about the switch to Cisco...I knew that there had been issues with the Cisco gear on this in the past...nice to know that its been resolved (for all intents and purposes). That tidbit just makes it that much more likely that IgLou will switch. -- 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

total contol doesn't respond to tcm
by shahrooz sharghi 25 Jul '02

25 Jul '02

hi all i used tcm for configing total control 1000 with nmc card and netserver pri card. but there is an erore: "the device doesn't respond" how can i help my problem? every two card has correct ip address ang can ping in the network. thanks __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com

4 3

routing based on in dialed digits?
by Lewis Bergman 25 Jul '02

25 Jul '02

Does anyone know if a TC1000 can route a call like a regular switch can? I don't mean like a level 2 data switch. I mean like an Adtran 800 or an EXS2000 or an 5ESS. Route an analog call from an inbound port to some outbound port. -- Lewis Bergman Texas Communications 4309 Maple St. Abilene, TX 79602-8044 915-695-6962 ext 115

1 0

dual HiperARC's
by Lewis Bergman 25 Jul '02

25 Jul '02

Thanks to the links from WayneG I am now able to set up some different scenarios with my two HiperARC's I also found the manual had a couple more. http://totalservice.commworks.com/tcsDocs/4.2/10039434/104_ch10.htm#15817 What the manual doesn't say is what is the preferred way to balance two hiper's for performance and redundancy. The easiest way seems to be example 8 that delegates all the work to the NMC by doing this on both ARC's. set chassis slot 1-16 owner no enable nmc chassis_awareness enable nmc dynamic_slot_assignment enable nmc dsa_idle_rebalancing But, this seems to defeat redundancy. Now both ARC's rely on one NMC. I know the chances are slim of an NMC and a ARC going out at once but why make them redundant at all. I guess if the NMC croaks then the ARC's just keep their current assignment until the NMC reappears? Meaning it is redundant still? kindof? I have also heard some problems from the list with chassis awareness. Bottom line: Is anybody doing this? How are you doing it? Are you happy with how it is going? -- Lewis Bergman Texas Communications 4309 Maple St. Abilene, TX 79602-8044 915-695-6962 ext 115

1 0

SNMP enable?
by Lewis Bergman 24 Jul '02

24 Jul '02

I have tried using snmpget for every OID I can think of. None of the ones that seem to work for everyone else give anything except the system uptime for me. Memory, CPU, modem usage... . They all return system uptime. Is there something i need to enable on the chassis? an example of how I am doing it follows: [root@lewis ~# snmpget ipnumber public 1.3.6.1.4.1.429.4.3.1.3.0 system.sysUpTime.6.1.4.1.429.4.3.1.3.0 = Timeticks: (941622234) 108 days, 23:37:02.34 That is supposed to be for memory. It doesn't matter what IOID I use it always comes back the same. -- Lewis Bergman Texas Communications 4309 Maple St. Abilene, TX 79602-8044 915-695-6962 ext 115

5 12

mixing 70A and 130A power supplies
by Timothy C. Bohen 24 Jul '02

24 Jul '02

I think I have a 70A dying in my chassis, can I mix a 130A together with a 70A? Also can I hot insert a power supply? Thanks Timothy C. Bohen CMSInter.Net LLC / Crystal MicroSystems LLC =========================================== web : www.cmsinter.net email : Tim(a)CMSInter.Net phone : 989.235.5100 x222 fax : 989.235.5151

6 5

More SNMP stuff
by Lewis Bergman 24 Jul '02

24 Jul '02

Having found much joy from the simple output MRTG gives with the modem utilization OID, I wondered to myself.... "Self, I says, what other really usefull OID's might give me a better picture of this box?" Does anyone have anything they check that lends a good health/performance picture on the TC. I am working my way through the MIB docs, long and ardous as they are and am looking to pair down the several thousand to the really important ones. -- Lewis Bergman Texas Communications 4309 Maple St. Abilene, TX 79602-8044 915-695-6962 ext 115

1 0

Accounting Question
by Noriega, Alejandro 24 Jul '02

24 Jul '02

Hi, I have more than 10 HiPerARCs with differents software version. I all HiPerARC where the version is: V4.1.59 - 6 or V4.1.59 - 1 the disconnected cause and the speed rx and tx attribute for the calls is sent to my radius differents like the HiPerARCs with higher software version and it doesn't understand it. This is the configuration example about accounting: TCAzuLTaSa-CI1>>shoW accoUNTING The Primary Server Status is: ENABLED Primary Server is: 200.42.89.34 Primary First Backup Server is: 0.0.0.0 Primary Second Backup Server is: 0.0.0.0 Primary Destination Port is: 1646 Primary First Backup Destination Port: 0 Primary Second Backup Destination Port: 0 Max Primary Retranmissions: 3 The Secondary Server Status is: ENABLED Secondary Server is: 200.42.89.35 Secondary First Backup Server is: 0.0.0.0 Secondary Second Backup Server is: 0.0.0.0 Secondary Destination Port is: 1646 Secondary First Backup Destination Port: 0 Secondary Second Backup Destination Port: 0 Max Secondary Retranmissions: 3 Source Port is: 1646 Retransmission Timeout: 60 seconds Accounting Start Time: CONNECTION Log Unauthenticated Calls: TRUE Vendor Specific Attribute: ENABLED Active Accounting Server (Primary): 200.42.89.34 Active Accounting Server (Secondary): 200.42.89.35 Attribute Style: STANDARD Prioritize First Server in a Server Group: DISABLED TCAzuLTaSa-CI1>>show radius RADIUS SETTINGS Fill Null Attributes : DISABLED Attribute Style: ASCEND Authentication Algorithm: ROUND_ROBIN Interim Accounting Interval Status: DISABLED Interim Accounting Interval: 240 seconds IEA Radius Source Port Authentication ENABLED IEA User Radius supplied username DISABLED Send Unauthenticated STOP record ENABLED Send Accounting records for default user: ENABLED Report Acct IP Addr only for Primary Link: DISABLED Send only STOP Acct for failed services: DISABLED I know that it surelly can be fix upgrading to a higher soft version but anyone knows if it could be and configuration problem? I didn't find information about what means each one of the fields under radius configuration, anyone have some about it o could tell me what the optimal configuration? Thanks zim

1 0

RE: [USR-TC] mixing 70A and 130A power supplies
by Joel - Fox Computers 24 Jul '02

24 Jul '02

THANKS! Good to know that it can work - from a technical standpoint, I didn't understand why it wouldn't work, but that's just what I read. Thanks, Joel -----Original Message----- From: Justin Kendall [mailto:jkendall@neteze.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:41 AM To: usr-tc(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [USR-TC] mixing 70A and 130A power supplies I agree with all of you saying that it probably shouldn't be done but I've done it twice with no problem at all. I had two 70's and went to two 130's with no problem the way that Joel suggested "I think you have to put the back part in first, leave it off, put in the front part, then turn it on" I'm sure it's a risk but I've done it with 4 power units in 2 chassis so it's your call but that's my input. Good luck, -Justin Kendall, NetEase, Inc.- jkendall(a)neteze.com 800.203.1916 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Greene" <mikeg(a)rockisland.com> To: <usr-tc(a)mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [USR-TC] mixing 70A and 130A power supplies > At 12:11 PM 7/24/2002 -0400, you wrote: > >I think I have a 70A dying in my chassis, can I mix a 130A together with a > >70A? > > I have been told that you cannot mix and match the power supplies, you can > however hotswap them (provided they match). > > Hopefully I'm wrong on the mix-n-match, as I would like to upgrade my 70A > to 130A without having to power down the chassis, from what I've read at > 3COM KB you have to power down the chassis when moving from one capacity to > another (70 to 130)... > > > > - Mike > > ------------------------------------------------ > Rock Island Communications, Inc. (360)-378-5884 > http://www.rockisland.com/ San Juan Islands, WA > ------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > USR-TC mailing list > USR-TC(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc > _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

1 0