Re: (ASCEND) Multiple independent NFAS groups

To: Peter Lalor <plalor@infoasis.com>
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) Multiple independent NFAS groups
From: Phillip Vandry <vandry@Mlink.NET>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:11:56 -0400 (EDT)
cc: ascend-users@max.bungi.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Jul 1998 10:07:36 EDT." <v04011702b1c16d8c8e65@[206.40.74.10]>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

> No. When I was provisioning the NFAS group I originally wanted two D
> channels for redundancy, but the telco's technical consultant recommended
> against it, saying that when things went down it'd be the entire span of
> T1s (hello, backhoe!), not a single B or D channel. So I went with the
> extra B channel and so far haven't regretted it.

In the backhoe case, yes, but line interface cards can fail, CSUs can fail,
and people can trip on wires.

It's a decison you have to make.

I only have one Max (4004) with a reduncant D channel (the others either
don't use NFAS, or use NFAS with just one D channel). I was disappointed
that when a D channel goes down, you do indeed get to recover using the
backup channel, but all the calls are dropped and you have to start over!

-Phil
++ 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) Multiple independent NFAS groups

From: Peter Lalor <plalor@infoasis.com>

Prev by Date: (ASCEND) BRI Timeout?
Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) V.90 Code upgrade
Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) Multiple independent NFAS groups
Next by thread: (ASCEND) Single Vs. Dual Terminal Mode
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread