Re: Which "PoP in a box" to use????? (fwd)
Alex (alex@livingston.com)
Wed, 09 Oct 1996 16:49:55 -0700
At 09:49 PM 10/8/96 EDT, you wrote:
>> We use the OR-U exclusively for PTP/On Demand ISDN Connections (we have
>> about 20 of them out there now). I have yet to try a OR-L/HS --- Generally
>> customers have chosen the CiscoPro instead.
>
>We have a few OR-U's at customer sites, and I really like them.
>Easy to configure, and pretty reliable. One thing I really like
>is that they've got the terminal adapter built right in.
>
>When I was hoping for when I looked at the other Office Routers
>were units with the CSU/DSU built in - another plug and go unit -
>but alas, no such luck.
>
>This started me thinking (I know, this could be trouble) - why does
>Livingston offer ISDN modems, and PM's with the ISDN modems built in,
>and now PM's with digital modems for channelized T1/E1 lines, but
>no CSU/DSU's and more importantly, routers with CSU/DSUs built in?
>
>Why should Adtran or Motorola get another couple o' hundred bucks
>when I deploy an OR-LS at a customer site? Why should I have to stack
>another piece of hardware on top of the router?
>
>Devil's advocate here: If a customer has a 56K unit and wants to jump
>to a higher bandwidth, the whole thing must be replaced. But that'll
>happen anyway if they want to go up from an OR-U with ISDN, or to a
>T1 > 384K.
>
>Anyone from L. want to give some insights on what the thinking was when
>this was discussed internally? I'm sure it must have been - I can't
>possibly be the first one to think of this stuff!
Its probably more of a cost thing than anything else, and some anxiety over
whether the CSU/DSU pricing out there will drop sufficiently that our value
add is erased and we become more expensive by integrating. We're definitely
looking at it.
alex
Alex Henthorn Livingston Enterprises
Senior Technical Product Manager 6920 Koll Center Parkway #220
Product Marketing Engineer Pleasanton, CA 94566
alex@livingston.com Voice 510-485-6787 Fax 510-244-1903