Re: Channelized T1 (fwd)

DT Scott (dtscott@scott.net)
Sat, 7 Dec 1996 23:54:48 -0600 (CST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: David Carmean: "To Proxy or Not to Proxy, Arp is the question..."
Previous message: Steve Haynes: "Problems with PM-3 and Netscape and Spry Dialer."

> Once upon a time Leander Berwers shaped the electrons to say...
> >I have been following the interesting discussion on the PM-3.
...
> In the US, channelized T1 is a T1 cut into 24 64K channels. Now, there is
> NO ISDN ability, and the signalling is inband. So you lose 8K per channel
> to signalling. Leaving you with 24 channels with 56K useful for data.

Sorry to respond to such old mail (I'm way behind...). But my
question is more general... I talked to a BellSouth tech this week and he
said that it was possible to get 64k from channelized T1 (vs. the 56k you
describe above with bit-robbed signalling) if you get it with the Extended
Superframe vs the regular Superframe.

Ok.. two questions:
1. Is this way, way, off? If so where? I'm pretty sure there are
ways to get 64k from channelized T1 - is this the
right nomenclature?
2. If the preceeding is correct, is Livingston going to do
Superframe, Extended Superframe, or (hopefully) both?

Later.

Derric

-- 
Derric Scott          Scott Network Services, Inc.         P. O. Box 361353
derric@scott.net           (205)987-5889               Birmingham, AL 35236

Next message: David Carmean: "To Proxy or Not to Proxy, Arp is the question..."
Previous message: Steve Haynes: "Problems with PM-3 and Netscape and Spry Dialer."