RE: (ASCEND) IDSL (fwd)

To: "Danko Jevtovic" <danko@sezampro.yu>, <ascend-users@bungi.com>
Subject: RE: (ASCEND) IDSL (fwd)
From: "Kevin A. Smith" <kevin@ascend.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 10:09:31 -0700
In-Reply-To: <000401bd765b$c2dce580$81ad6ac2@danko-t.sezampro.yu>
References: <v04003a00b170dd777f45@[207.48.52.241]>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

At 08:21 AM 5/3/98 +0200, Danko Jevtovic wrote:
>> original intent of the IDSL switch type on the Pipelines -- setting a
>> switch type of IDSL was intended to generate AT&T PTP 2B+D over 
>=========================
>I did understood that IDSL switch type on Pipeline enables you to bind
>all channels (2B+D) together so that you can get full 144Kbps bandwidth.

No. The 16K d-channel is still not used for data even over IDSL.


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

Follow-Ups:

RE: (ASCEND) IDSL (fwd)

From: Jason Nealis <nealis@babylon.erols.com>

References:

Re: (ASCEND) IDSL (fwd)

From: Tom Pepper <pepper@lh.net>

RE: (ASCEND) IDSL (fwd)

From: "Danko Jevtovic" <danko@sezampro.yu>

Prev by Date: RE: (ASCEND) static routes and stacking
Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) IDSL (fwd)
Prev by thread: (ASCEND) What's with the SPAM
Next by thread: RE: (ASCEND) IDSL (fwd)
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread