V.92 is a feature (subset) of v.90, not a modulation type. Connections will show V.90 Modulation. You will have to check the intended operational features of V.92 to include: PCM upstream, Modem on hold, and Quick Connect and see if any of those work. Rick -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sheldon [mailto:jsheldon@texascom.com] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:19 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Ok, I have the v.92 code in the total control, I have enabled the v.92 options on the dsp and I have a v.92 modem but I do not have a v.92 connection only v.90. Did I miss something? -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:44 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems We saw a vast improvement in connection qualities going to 3.5.105. But then, we were leaving the lower 2's, so it may depend on where you were at. -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Timothy C. Bohen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:29 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems We have yet to upgrade to V.92. I judge from these posts that as long as you have a current version its good stuff? Or am I wrong, should I wait longer? Thanks Timothy C. Bohen CMSInter.Net LLC / Crystal MicroSystems LLC =========================================== web : www.cmsinter.net email: tim@cmsinter.net phone: 989.235.5100 x222 fax : 989.235.5151 -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:45 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Yeah, that's why we were leery of the 3.5.12 code, all the problems people complained about with Lucent WinModems. The irony is that our Lucent WinModem consistently got the best connects in our test environment with 3.5.105. -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Mark Shumate Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:41 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Yeah, you definately need later code. We had tons of trouble when we installed 3.5.12, but it cleared up with later code revisions. We are using 3.5.105 now and things are going pretty well. We actually had the most trouble with USRobotics Winmodems on 3.5.12 but I believe we had trouble with some HCF and software based modems too. Other people experienced the same problems if I recall correctly. -= Mark Shumate -= IS Manager -= InfoWest -= http://www.infowest.com
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:17 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
I never actually used 3.5.12, Source-T stopped me from installing it and sent me the 3.5.105 instead, which we haven't experienced any problems since installing. So I would say get the 3.5.105 as well.
Casen
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joel - Fox Computers Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:07 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
Just my opinion - 3.5.12 gotta go - you need 3.5.103 or 3.5.105. With
either 103 or 105, we see 50666 or 52000 all the time on Conexant modems.
-----Original Message----- From: Cindy Smith [mailto:cindyo@ktc.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:42 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
3.5.12 for the DSP code 5.3.3 on the Arc code 8.6.3 on the NMC code
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Casen wrote:
Just for reference, what firmwares did you upgrade to?
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Cindy Smith Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:47 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
I have upgraded a few of our pops. I cut on the V.92 features.
There seems to be a problem with these modems...
Creative Labs v.92 Broadxent DI 3631 Dell Data fax (no Model info) Rockwell 56K HCF DNF RTAD PCI Modem
Does anyone know of any modems strings that might come in handy to get
these customers connected?
Any advice would be appreciated.
TIA -- Cindy
-- ---------------------------- Cindy Smith 830-896-1111 KTC iNet SysAdmin ----------------------------
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
Thought that might be the case. Will the TCM display the higher upstream speed or is that just a compression technique and not an actual connect speed? -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of RickL@solunet.com Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:27 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems V.92 is a feature (subset) of v.90, not a modulation type. Connections will show V.90 Modulation. You will have to check the intended operational features of V.92 to include: PCM upstream, Modem on hold, and Quick Connect and see if any of those work. Rick -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sheldon [mailto:jsheldon@texascom.com] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:19 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Ok, I have the v.92 code in the total control, I have enabled the v.92 options on the dsp and I have a v.92 modem but I do not have a v.92 connection only v.90. Did I miss something? -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:44 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems We saw a vast improvement in connection qualities going to 3.5.105. But then, we were leaving the lower 2's, so it may depend on where you were at. -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Timothy C. Bohen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:29 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems We have yet to upgrade to V.92. I judge from these posts that as long as you have a current version its good stuff? Or am I wrong, should I wait longer? Thanks Timothy C. Bohen CMSInter.Net LLC / Crystal MicroSystems LLC =========================================== web : www.cmsinter.net email: tim@cmsinter.net phone: 989.235.5100 x222 fax : 989.235.5151 -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:45 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Yeah, that's why we were leery of the 3.5.12 code, all the problems people complained about with Lucent WinModems. The irony is that our Lucent WinModem consistently got the best connects in our test environment with 3.5.105. -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Mark Shumate Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:41 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Yeah, you definately need later code. We had tons of trouble when we installed 3.5.12, but it cleared up with later code revisions. We are using 3.5.105 now and things are going pretty well. We actually had the most trouble with USRobotics Winmodems on 3.5.12 but I believe we had trouble with some HCF and software based modems too. Other people experienced the same problems if I recall correctly. -= Mark Shumate -= IS Manager -= InfoWest -= http://www.infowest.com
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:17 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
I never actually used 3.5.12, Source-T stopped me from installing it and sent me the 3.5.105 instead, which we haven't experienced any problems since installing. So I would say get the 3.5.105 as well.
Casen
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joel - Fox Computers Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:07 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
Just my opinion - 3.5.12 gotta go - you need 3.5.103 or 3.5.105. With
either 103 or 105, we see 50666 or 52000 all the time on Conexant modems.
-----Original Message----- From: Cindy Smith [mailto:cindyo@ktc.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:42 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
3.5.12 for the DSP code 5.3.3 on the Arc code 8.6.3 on the NMC code
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Casen wrote:
Just for reference, what firmwares did you upgrade to?
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Cindy Smith Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:47 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
I have upgraded a few of our pops. I cut on the V.92 features.
There seems to be a problem with these modems...
Creative Labs v.92 Broadxent DI 3631 Dell Data fax (no Model info) Rockwell 56K HCF DNF RTAD PCI Modem
Does anyone know of any modems strings that might come in handy to get
these customers connected?
Any advice would be appreciated.
TIA -- Cindy
-- ---------------------------- Cindy Smith 830-896-1111 KTC iNet SysAdmin ----------------------------
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
In our tests we saw v.92PCMUpstream for the modulation type of v.92 connections through TCM. We found this by performance monitoring the channels of a DSP card for the modulation type. Or you could check through an SNMP query to the HiperNMC in your rack for oid ,1.3.6.1.4.1.429.1.6.9.1.1.14.[slotnum][channelnum]. A v.92 connection would return a value of 45 to that query. Also, our radius software amusingly enough has decided that v.92 connections are ISDN. Confused the hell out of our tech support for awhile. :) Casen -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jim Sheldon Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:36 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Thought that might be the case. Will the TCM display the higher upstream speed or is that just a compression technique and not an actual connect speed? -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of RickL@solunet.com Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:27 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems V.92 is a feature (subset) of v.90, not a modulation type. Connections will show V.90 Modulation. You will have to check the intended operational features of V.92 to include: PCM upstream, Modem on hold, and Quick Connect and see if any of those work. Rick -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sheldon [mailto:jsheldon@texascom.com] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:19 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Ok, I have the v.92 code in the total control, I have enabled the v.92 options on the dsp and I have a v.92 modem but I do not have a v.92 connection only v.90. Did I miss something? -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:44 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems We saw a vast improvement in connection qualities going to 3.5.105. But then, we were leaving the lower 2's, so it may depend on where you were at. -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Timothy C. Bohen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:29 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems We have yet to upgrade to V.92. I judge from these posts that as long as you have a current version its good stuff? Or am I wrong, should I wait longer? Thanks Timothy C. Bohen CMSInter.Net LLC / Crystal MicroSystems LLC =========================================== web : www.cmsinter.net email: tim@cmsinter.net phone: 989.235.5100 x222 fax : 989.235.5151 -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:45 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Yeah, that's why we were leery of the 3.5.12 code, all the problems people complained about with Lucent WinModems. The irony is that our Lucent WinModem consistently got the best connects in our test environment with 3.5.105. -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Mark Shumate Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:41 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Yeah, you definately need later code. We had tons of trouble when we installed 3.5.12, but it cleared up with later code revisions. We are using 3.5.105 now and things are going pretty well. We actually had the most trouble with USRobotics Winmodems on 3.5.12 but I believe we had trouble with some HCF and software based modems too. Other people experienced the same problems if I recall correctly. -= Mark Shumate -= IS Manager -= InfoWest -= http://www.infowest.com
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:17 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
I never actually used 3.5.12, Source-T stopped me from installing it and sent me the 3.5.105 instead, which we haven't experienced any problems since installing. So I would say get the 3.5.105 as well.
Casen
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joel - Fox Computers Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:07 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
Just my opinion - 3.5.12 gotta go - you need 3.5.103 or 3.5.105. With
either 103 or 105, we see 50666 or 52000 all the time on Conexant modems.
-----Original Message----- From: Cindy Smith [mailto:cindyo@ktc.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:42 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
3.5.12 for the DSP code 5.3.3 on the Arc code 8.6.3 on the NMC code
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Casen wrote:
Just for reference, what firmwares did you upgrade to?
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Cindy Smith Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:47 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
I have upgraded a few of our pops. I cut on the V.92 features.
There seems to be a problem with these modems...
Creative Labs v.92 Broadxent DI 3631 Dell Data fax (no Model info) Rockwell 56K HCF DNF RTAD PCI Modem
Does anyone know of any modems strings that might come in handy to get
these customers connected?
Any advice would be appreciated.
TIA -- Cindy
-- ---------------------------- Cindy Smith 830-896-1111 KTC iNet SysAdmin ----------------------------
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
It has come to my attention that I need to enable the v.92 in the Hyper ARC also. Is this the case and if it is where do I enable it? -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:51 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems In our tests we saw v.92PCMUpstream for the modulation type of v.92 connections through TCM. We found this by performance monitoring the channels of a DSP card for the modulation type. Or you could check through an SNMP query to the HiperNMC in your rack for oid ,1.3.6.1.4.1.429.1.6.9.1.1.14.[slotnum][channelnum]. A v.92 connection would return a value of 45 to that query. Also, our radius software amusingly enough has decided that v.92 connections are ISDN. Confused the hell out of our tech support for awhile. :) Casen -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jim Sheldon Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:36 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Thought that might be the case. Will the TCM display the higher upstream speed or is that just a compression technique and not an actual connect speed? -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of RickL@solunet.com Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:27 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems V.92 is a feature (subset) of v.90, not a modulation type. Connections will show V.90 Modulation. You will have to check the intended operational features of V.92 to include: PCM upstream, Modem on hold, and Quick Connect and see if any of those work. Rick -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sheldon [mailto:jsheldon@texascom.com] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:19 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Ok, I have the v.92 code in the total control, I have enabled the v.92 options on the dsp and I have a v.92 modem but I do not have a v.92 connection only v.90. Did I miss something? -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:44 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems We saw a vast improvement in connection qualities going to 3.5.105. But then, we were leaving the lower 2's, so it may depend on where you were at. -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Timothy C. Bohen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:29 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems We have yet to upgrade to V.92. I judge from these posts that as long as you have a current version its good stuff? Or am I wrong, should I wait longer? Thanks Timothy C. Bohen CMSInter.Net LLC / Crystal MicroSystems LLC =========================================== web : www.cmsinter.net email: tim@cmsinter.net phone: 989.235.5100 x222 fax : 989.235.5151 -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:45 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Yeah, that's why we were leery of the 3.5.12 code, all the problems people complained about with Lucent WinModems. The irony is that our Lucent WinModem consistently got the best connects in our test environment with 3.5.105. -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Mark Shumate Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:41 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Yeah, you definately need later code. We had tons of trouble when we installed 3.5.12, but it cleared up with later code revisions. We are using 3.5.105 now and things are going pretty well. We actually had the most trouble with USRobotics Winmodems on 3.5.12 but I believe we had trouble with some HCF and software based modems too. Other people experienced the same problems if I recall correctly. -= Mark Shumate -= IS Manager -= InfoWest -= http://www.infowest.com
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:17 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
I never actually used 3.5.12, Source-T stopped me from installing it and sent me the 3.5.105 instead, which we haven't experienced any problems since installing. So I would say get the 3.5.105 as well.
Casen
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joel - Fox Computers Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:07 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
Just my opinion - 3.5.12 gotta go - you need 3.5.103 or 3.5.105. With
either 103 or 105, we see 50666 or 52000 all the time on Conexant modems.
-----Original Message----- From: Cindy Smith [mailto:cindyo@ktc.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:42 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
3.5.12 for the DSP code 5.3.3 on the Arc code 8.6.3 on the NMC code
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Casen wrote:
Just for reference, what firmwares did you upgrade to?
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Cindy Smith Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:47 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
I have upgraded a few of our pops. I cut on the V.92 features.
There seems to be a problem with these modems...
Creative Labs v.92 Broadxent DI 3631 Dell Data fax (no Model info) Rockwell 56K HCF DNF RTAD PCI Modem
Does anyone know of any modems strings that might come in handy to get
these customers connected?
Any advice would be appreciated.
TIA -- Cindy
-- ---------------------------- Cindy Smith 830-896-1111 KTC iNet SysAdmin ----------------------------
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
Hrm. I didn't have to change any ARC configurations that I recall. I just had to go to programmed settings on all the channels of the DSPs, and there's a v92 menu there that we enabled everything on through TCM. -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jim Sheldon Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:42 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems It has come to my attention that I need to enable the v.92 in the Hyper ARC also. Is this the case and if it is where do I enable it? -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:51 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems In our tests we saw v.92PCMUpstream for the modulation type of v.92 connections through TCM. We found this by performance monitoring the channels of a DSP card for the modulation type. Or you could check through an SNMP query to the HiperNMC in your rack for oid ,1.3.6.1.4.1.429.1.6.9.1.1.14.[slotnum][channelnum]. A v.92 connection would return a value of 45 to that query. Also, our radius software amusingly enough has decided that v.92 connections are ISDN. Confused the hell out of our tech support for awhile. :) Casen -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jim Sheldon Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:36 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Thought that might be the case. Will the TCM display the higher upstream speed or is that just a compression technique and not an actual connect speed? -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of RickL@solunet.com Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:27 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems V.92 is a feature (subset) of v.90, not a modulation type. Connections will show V.90 Modulation. You will have to check the intended operational features of V.92 to include: PCM upstream, Modem on hold, and Quick Connect and see if any of those work. Rick -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sheldon [mailto:jsheldon@texascom.com] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:19 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Ok, I have the v.92 code in the total control, I have enabled the v.92 options on the dsp and I have a v.92 modem but I do not have a v.92 connection only v.90. Did I miss something? -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:44 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems We saw a vast improvement in connection qualities going to 3.5.105. But then, we were leaving the lower 2's, so it may depend on where you were at. -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Timothy C. Bohen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:29 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems We have yet to upgrade to V.92. I judge from these posts that as long as you have a current version its good stuff? Or am I wrong, should I wait longer? Thanks Timothy C. Bohen CMSInter.Net LLC / Crystal MicroSystems LLC =========================================== web : www.cmsinter.net email: tim@cmsinter.net phone: 989.235.5100 x222 fax : 989.235.5151 -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:45 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Yeah, that's why we were leery of the 3.5.12 code, all the problems people complained about with Lucent WinModems. The irony is that our Lucent WinModem consistently got the best connects in our test environment with 3.5.105. -----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Mark Shumate Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:41 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems Yeah, you definately need later code. We had tons of trouble when we installed 3.5.12, but it cleared up with later code revisions. We are using 3.5.105 now and things are going pretty well. We actually had the most trouble with USRobotics Winmodems on 3.5.12 but I believe we had trouble with some HCF and software based modems too. Other people experienced the same problems if I recall correctly. -= Mark Shumate -= IS Manager -= InfoWest -= http://www.infowest.com
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:17 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
I never actually used 3.5.12, Source-T stopped me from installing it and sent me the 3.5.105 instead, which we haven't experienced any problems since installing. So I would say get the 3.5.105 as well.
Casen
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joel - Fox Computers Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:07 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
Just my opinion - 3.5.12 gotta go - you need 3.5.103 or 3.5.105. With
either 103 or 105, we see 50666 or 52000 all the time on Conexant modems.
-----Original Message----- From: Cindy Smith [mailto:cindyo@ktc.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:42 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
3.5.12 for the DSP code 5.3.3 on the Arc code 8.6.3 on the NMC code
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Casen wrote:
Just for reference, what firmwares did you upgrade to?
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Cindy Smith Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:47 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
I have upgraded a few of our pops. I cut on the V.92 features.
There seems to be a problem with these modems...
Creative Labs v.92 Broadxent DI 3631 Dell Data fax (no Model info) Rockwell 56K HCF DNF RTAD PCI Modem
Does anyone know of any modems strings that might come in handy to get
these customers connected?
Any advice would be appreciated.
TIA -- Cindy
-- ---------------------------- Cindy Smith 830-896-1111 KTC iNet SysAdmin ----------------------------
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
That sucks - anyone seen the prop. radius value for this modulation type? Marshall Morgan Internet Doorway, Inc (aka NETDOOR) http://www.netdoor.com 601.969.1434 x28 | 800.952.1570 x28 | 601.969.3629 x28 | Fax 601.969.3838 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Casen" <Xeen@Aros.Net> To: <usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:51 AM Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
In our tests we saw v.92PCMUpstream for the modulation type of v.92 connections through TCM. We found this by performance monitoring the channels of a DSP card for the modulation type. Or you could check through an SNMP query to the HiperNMC in your rack for oid ,1.3.6.1.4.1.429.1.6.9.1.1.14.[slotnum][channelnum]. A v.92 connection would return a value of 45 to that query.
Also, our radius software amusingly enough has decided that v.92 connections are ISDN. Confused the hell out of our tech support for awhile. :)
Casen
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jim Sheldon Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:36 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
Thought that might be the case. Will the TCM display the higher upstream speed or is that just a compression technique and not an actual connect speed?
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of RickL@solunet.com Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:27 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
V.92 is a feature (subset) of v.90, not a modulation type. Connections will show V.90 Modulation. You will have to check the intended operational features of V.92 to include: PCM upstream, Modem on hold, and Quick Connect and see if any of those work.
Rick
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Sheldon [mailto:jsheldon@texascom.com] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:19 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
Ok, I have the v.92 code in the total control, I have enabled the v.92 options on the dsp and I have a v.92 modem but I do not have a v.92 connection only v.90. Did I miss something?
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:44 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
We saw a vast improvement in connection qualities going to 3.5.105. But then, we were leaving the lower 2's, so it may depend on where you were at.
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Timothy C. Bohen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:29 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
We have yet to upgrade to V.92.
I judge from these posts that as long as you have a current version its good stuff?
Or am I wrong, should I wait longer?
Thanks
Timothy C. Bohen CMSInter.Net LLC / Crystal MicroSystems LLC =========================================== web : www.cmsinter.net email: tim@cmsinter.net phone: 989.235.5100 x222 fax : 989.235.5151
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:45 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
Yeah, that's why we were leery of the 3.5.12 code, all the problems people complained about with Lucent WinModems. The irony is that our Lucent WinModem consistently got the best connects in our test environment with 3.5.105.
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Mark Shumate Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:41 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
Yeah, you definately need later code. We had tons of trouble when we installed 3.5.12, but it cleared up with later code revisions. We are using 3.5.105 now and things are going pretty well. We actually had the most trouble with USRobotics Winmodems on 3.5.12 but I believe we had trouble with some HCF and software based modems too. Other people experienced the same problems if I recall correctly.
-= Mark Shumate -= IS Manager -= InfoWest -= http://www.infowest.com
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Casen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:17 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
I never actually used 3.5.12, Source-T stopped me from installing it and sent me the 3.5.105 instead, which we haven't experienced any problems since installing. So I would say get the 3.5.105 as well.
Casen
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joel - Fox Computers Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:07 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
Just my opinion - 3.5.12 gotta go - you need 3.5.103 or 3.5.105. With
either 103 or 105, we see 50666 or 52000 all the time on Conexant modems.
-----Original Message----- From: Cindy Smith [mailto:cindyo@ktc.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:42 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
3.5.12 for the DSP code 5.3.3 on the Arc code 8.6.3 on the NMC code
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Casen wrote:
Just for reference, what firmwares did you upgrade to?
-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Cindy Smith Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:47 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [USR-TC] V.92 problem modems
I have upgraded a few of our pops. I cut on the V.92 features.
There seems to be a problem with these modems...
Creative Labs v.92 Broadxent DI 3631 Dell Data fax (no Model info) Rockwell 56K HCF DNF RTAD PCI Modem
Does anyone know of any modems strings that might come in handy to get
these customers connected?
Any advice would be appreciated.
TIA -- Cindy
-- ---------------------------- Cindy Smith 830-896-1111 KTC iNet SysAdmin ----------------------------
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
Hi, On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:46:29AM -0500, Marshall Morgan wrote:
That sucks - anyone seen the prop. radius value for this modulation type?
Should be s/t like: USR-VALUE Modulation-Type v92 36 according the respective dictnary. Hope this helps, Oliver. [... about 2000 lines deleted... ;-) ] -- Oliver.Francke@mediaWays.net fon. +49-5246-80-1389 mob. +49-171-5597734 I used to have a sig, but I've stopped smoking now.
participants (5)
-
Casen -
Jim Sheldon -
Marshall Morgan -
Oliver Francke -
RickL＠solunet.com