You need the TCM only if you're going to want to do upgrades on
the modems and handle SNMP. However, you don't *require* them.
TCM is a piece of junk that GPF's more times than its worth,
doesn't interface with other software well, requires win3.1 and
a proprietary stack. The machine we *had* running it was useless
for anything else.
You can handle the upgrades through a dos program if you want to.
The SNMP is best done with software thats decent.
They *seem* to use tftp for upgrading, but I don't have the details.
> * The basic feature set sounds oddly like ComOS 3.1.4s features - not
> surprising as we licensed them ComOS up to 3.1.4. But I don't see
> later features listed - no listing of RFC 1877 DNS in PPP for
It is, minus the fact that filters were changed to be backwards
of Livingston's (permit then deny vs. deny then permit).
RFC 1877 is supported in the rev of the Netserver code we currently
have.
Cor was heard to say in this thread:
> Well, we've been playing with the USR rack, with little luck sofar.
> It seems the product hasn't matured much yet. They're flying over
> USR technicians to look at the problems. It's so bad we havent even
> been able to dial into the box yet.
I was always able to get through to USR, but usually not to
someone who has a clue. I am seldom (these days) able to get
through to Livingston (on the RARE occassion that I need to) but
I *always* get someone with a clue. I'll take Livinston tech support
any day.
Mind you, once we got USR to fix a TTL=0 bug in their routing,
we've had no further problems with the box. Its very nice, the
modems are dead solid.
Two quibbles:
o TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE!
o Radius accounting records have the *oddest* format.
Megazone again:
> So, is that 18th (wide) slot usable or is that actually some of the
> needed HW for the chassis?
Power supply. I believe the dual supplies are required, but I may
be wrong.
Holger Koepke now:
> Hey! But they HAVE a fine SNMP solution! And you DON'T need this stuff to
> configure the modem/netserver/PRI-card. We are waiting a long time now, to have
> SNMP from Livingston also! BTW: I like the feature USR is giving the costumers
> with their NMC!
If you consider it a useful piece of software.
I would rather run Castle Rock's SNMPc (under evaluation now) on a
WinNT setup. This way, the box can actually run, oh, say a telnet
session without locking up. However, you can't easily upgrade the
box without NMC.
> USR is working on this, we are looking who is faster with a released version
Latest and buggiest. QC from USR is questionable from our experience,
although if you're working with a top level technician, its higher.
-- Jeffrey Haas, Systems Administrator Msen Inc., "Michigan's best managed ISP." jmh@msen.com +/+ http://www.msen.com