--tlf
----------
From: patrick@value.net[SMTP:patrick@value.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 1996 9:02 AM
To: portmaster-users@livingston.com
Subject: Accusations
MZ wrote:
> And that was a thank you note for a problem that was fixed.
I suggest you RE-READ the message:
Here it is in its entirety:
>From patrick@value.net Thu Oct 10 12:54:15 1996
>Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
>From: patrick@value.net
>To: cjackson@livingston.com
>Cc: support@livingston.com
>Subject: Weird problem solved(sort of)
>
>
>Thanks for working with us on Saturday, Cary. I found the source of the
>problem, and it has me very perplexed(that's not too hard.) To refresh
>your memory, and for the benefit of support in case they can offer any
>insight, my client had a Brooktrout IP/FaxRouter product hooked up to a
>PM-OR-U. This was the observed behaviour through testing:
>
>1) Using the TA internal to the OR-U, the Brooktrout was able to send
> and receive faxes fine.
>
>2) Using an external TA hooked to the OR-U, the Brooktrout was able to
> send and receive faxes fine.
>
>3) Using an analog modem hooked to the OR-U, the Brooktrout failed from
> one account that we set up, yet worked on another. Ptrace showed
> a bunch of TCP packets would start flowing(the fax) to a certain point
> and then pause, attempting to resend the same packet over and over
> until the Brooktrout gave up.
>After endlessly swapping equipment, changing speeds on the ports,
>turning v.42bis compression on the modem off, checking routing and
>general hair pulling, I compared the users file on the account that the
>analog modem was working with vs. the one it was failing. The difference
>was....the MTU. Since I had one account that was set up for ISDN, I setup the
>users file with an MTU of 1500. The analog accounts I set up with an MTU
>of 1006 by default. Using the account with the MTU of 1006 worked on ISDN
>and failed with an analog connection. Changing the account to use an MTU
>of 1500, and it worked just fine. Change it back to 1006, it stops
>working. Change it back, and it works(I tried this a few times.) This
>whole thing makes little to no sense to me since packet fragmentation and
>reassembly is on a totally different level. Ideas? Weird conspiracy
>theories?
Here is the followup message to cjackson:
>From patrick@value.net Thu Oct 10 12:53:45 1996
>Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
>From: patrick@value.net
>To: cjackson@livingston.com
>Subject: Problem
>
>
>I was wondering if you have had a chance to talk to an engineer about the
>problem we were having withe the Brooktrout <-> OR-U interaction.
>
>support@livingston.com, whoever that is, hasn't even acknowledged the
>message. I have received a similar lack of response on any message I have
>ever mailed to support@livingston.com in the past year and a half.
>
>I really need a resolution to this. Ultimately, I think the best
>idea is to have Livingston people talk directly to the Brooktrout people,
>as trying to ferry messages back and forth seems much less productive.
>
>Please let me know.
Here is my message to Brian Rice:
> From patrick@value.net Thu Oct 10 12:51:13 1996
> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 14:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
> From: patrick@value.net
> To: bri@whitestone.com
> Subject: Support problems....
>
>
> A while back you said to let you know personally if I had any problems
> with support. I am having the same problem as I have had in the past:lack
> of responsiveness. Below are a couple of messages, both of which I have
> received no response on. Cary did call me on the 30th before I sent the
> message to him and support, saying that he was going to try to talk to
> an engineer, but nothing further. I have a client that is going to be
> purchasing a large amount of either OR-U's or similar Ascend units,
> somewhere along the lines of 200+. Of course I prefer they go with the
> Livingston, but I need a resolution to the odd behaviour I noticed(see
> message below) before I or my client feel comfortable with using the OR-U
> for this purpose. And of course, they were supposed to roll out service a
> couple of months ago, so this is fairly urgent for them and me.
> Oh BTW, phone support has improved markedly, but I have as of yet *ever*
> to receive a response from support@livingston.com.
> Please, can you help me here?
>
>[Included Messages follow]
*SNIP*
Would you like me to post the sendmail logs showing delivery of the
messages also?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (510) 943-5769 voice
Systems Administrator (510) 210-2000 modem
Value Net, Inc. (510) 943-1708 fax
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/