RE: (ASCEND) caller-id on POTS port of new P75

To: "dereks@dallas.net" <dereks@dallas.net>
Subject: RE: (ASCEND) caller-id on POTS port of new P75
From: Matt Holdrege <matt@ascend.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 19:01:12 -0700
Cc: "'Earl.Barfield@oit.gatech.edu'" <Earl.Barfield@oit.gatech.edu>, "ascend-users@max.bungi.com" <ascend-users@max.bungi.com>
In-Reply-To: <01BCCE75.341F8E30.dereks@dallas.net>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

At 02:20 PM 10/1/97 -0500, Derek J. Stutsman wrote:
>I'm the person that started that original thread on the Sony phone.  :)
>
>It looks like the reason it fails is because the timestamp being sent from 
>the Pipeline is bogus.  I have a cheap generic CID box on it (which does 
>work) and it reports 12:00 00/00 for the timestamp.  I hope Ascend is 
>planning on fixing this, it really irks me that I can't use my new phone 
>with it.  If my phone doesn't work, then surely many other devices also 
>fail...

So what your saying is that the cheap box reports the phone number
properly, and the expensive box doesn't. And this is the Pipeline's fault?
Maybe the expensive boxes don't have enough of a tolerance level?


Matt Holdrege  -  http://www.ascend.com  -  matt@ascend.com
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

References:

RE: (ASCEND) caller-id on POTS port of new P75

From: "Derek J. Stutsman" <dereks@dallas.net>

Prev by Date: RE: (ASCEND) caller-id on POTS port of new P75
Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) NAT on P75 for 200 workstations (yeah, really...)
Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) caller-id on POTS port of new P75
Next by thread: RE: (ASCEND) caller-id on POTS port of new P75
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread