>Once upon a time Prof Jake Messinger shaped the electrons to say...
>>I think the PM 3 is supposed to be the Livingston version of the MAX. The
>>PM 3 cannot do as much as the max, YET. In other words, it only does the 2
>>pri's whereas max can take up to 4 T1's.
>
>BFD.
>
>1. The PM-3 is smaller over all, so the total volume isn't radically different.
>2. The PM-3 is less expensive per port. 2 PM-3s should run less than 1 4004.
>3. Putting 4 T1s in one chassis is riskier than 2 in 2 chassis.
>4. The PM-3 can FULLY populate the PRI/T1 lines with modems. ALL channels
>can be used. The 4004 with 4 PRI/T1 has up to 96 lines but only 72 modems.
>5. The Ascend has all kinds of videoconferencing code, etc, that we just
>aren't interested in doing.
>
Adding my 2 cents:
6. True Digital DSP-based modems (not Rockwell chip sets) which means lower power consumption, generates less heat, no codec or analog conversion required, flash upgradeable, real-time diagnostics, hot swappable cards, integral PPP procesing.
7. Automatic or manual busy-out means less chance of a failed modem munging the hunt group.
8. Multi-processor acrhitecture means one CPU isn't responsible for the whole enchilada. As stated above, each modem DSP even has capacity to perform PPP framing. Bottom line is even with 60 concurrent sessions,the PM3 keeps ticking.
9.One telephone number can front-end the PM3 to handle ISDN (data and data-over-voice) and modem calls.
10.Firewall packet filtering is standard in the ComOS.
--Marty
****************************************************************
Marty Likier Livingston Worldwide Headquarters
Product Marketing Mgr. 4464 Willow Road
(800) 458-9966 Pleasanton, CA 94588 USA
(510) 737-2164 (510) 244-1903 (FAX)
marty@livingston.com Web:
<color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>http://www.livingston.com
</color>****************************************************************