enger@seka.scc.com (Robert M. Enger) (02/26/91)
Folks: Does anyone have any experience with the CODEX V.32bis modem? Anything (good or bad) to report? Anything at all? Thanks, Bob -- Robert M. Enger CONTEL Federal Systems enger@seka.scc.com (Internet)
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (02/27/91)
In article <1930@public.BTR.COM> thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) writes: >In article <1991Feb25.122859.26635@europa.asd.contel.com> enger@seka.scc.com writes: >>Folks: >> >>Does anyone have any experience with the CODEX V.32bis modem? >>Anything (good or bad) to report? Anything at all? > >One site (BIG; one of the world's largest mfrs of test equipment and computers >located in Palo Alto CA) that has to callback my site due to security has a >large number of the latest CODEX modems (with MNP 5 even), and the highest >speed at which we can connect is 2400 baud. > >This is ridiculous, since my site has Telebit T2500, Digicom 9624LE, and >other, modems with which I have NO problems calling other sites successfully >at 9600 and 19200 baud. > Sorry to burst your bubble Thad, but the fault is entirely YOURS. Perhaps if you could obtain a REAL V.32 modem and configure it properly you could attach at 9.6, 19.2, 38.4. >Unless that site has incompetently mis-configured their CODEX modems ('tis >possible :-), based on my experience in this regards I would never under any >circumstances buy a CODEX product. I hate to repeat myself, but perhaps the fault is NOT at the remote site. Can your modems connect with ANY CCITT compliant V.32 modem? > >I've offered to go to that site and help them out, but they won't even lend >me their CODEX manuals; the model number is, I believe, 2264 (or something >like that). If ANYONE has managed to call a T2500 or 9624LE from a CODEX >at 9600, I would be greatly appreciative knowing HOW you did it so I can >relay the info to the "troublesome" site. If you want a Codex 2264 manual [And the 2264 is a V.32 modem, not a V.32bis] why don't you just call Codex? I've never had any problem getting a manual.... The "troublesome" site just MIGHT be YOU...and this company has no problems whatever connecting with other CCITT compliant modems at 9.6 to 38.4 bits/sec async. Hopefully they would refuse to "properly" configure their fully compliant V.32 modems just to talk to your proprietary ones....have you ever considered buying a compliant modem if you want the faster speeds? V.22bis is about the fastest speed you have in common...although I'll admit it mystifies me why you can't connect at V.22bis at 9600 with compression enabled.
thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) (02/27/91)
In article <146297@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes: >In article <1930@public.BTR.COM> thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) writes: >One site (BIG; one of the world's largest mfrs of test equipment and computers >located in Palo Alto CA) that has to callback my site due to security has a >large number of the latest CODEX modems (with MNP 5 even), and the highest >speed at which we can connect is 2400 baud. > >This is ridiculous, since my site has Telebit T2500, Digicom 9624LE, and >other, modems with which I have NO problems calling other sites successfully >at 9600 and 19200 baud. Lon: Sorry to burst your bubble Thad, but the fault is entirely Lon: YOURS. Perhaps if you could obtain a REAL V.32 modem and Lon: configure it properly you could attach at 9.6, 19.2, 38.4. Oh? Then I'm sure the Federal Trade Commission would be interested in your report that Telebit and Digicom LIE and MISREPRESENT THEMSELVES when they claim REAL V.32 capability. :-) >Unless that site has incompetently mis-configured their CODEX modems ('tis >possible :-), based on my experience in this regards I would never under any >circumstances buy a CODEX product. Lon: I hate to repeat myself, but perhaps the fault is NOT at Lon: the remote site. Can your modems connect with ANY CCITT Lon: compliant V.32 modem? Yes, my site connects just fine at 19200 and 9600 to all OTHER sites using V.32 and/or PEP. It's only that ONE SITE with the problem. My site has two Telebit T2500, two Digicom 9624LE, and two ARK24K modems, and everything works just fine polling and being polled to/from everywhere EXCEPT that one site; my connectivity at present is to over 30 sites directly-called worldwide, so your allegation my site has a problem is a non sequitur. To be best of my knowledge, that one site in Palo Alto is the only one in MY "universe" with CODEX modems, hence my original statements. The original poster wanted feedback, so I related my experience interfacing with CODEX. And as I replied to others in email, that same site has been troublesome for over a decade, beginning with their mis-configuration of Racal-Vadic 3467 Triple Modems when 1200 baud was de rigeur. I fought tooth-and-nail with them for over 6 months during 1979 before they said "Oh, you're right, Thad, sorry, we'll fix it in a jiffy," and they did. For those who forget, those old Racal-Vadic modems supported 103, 212A and VA3400 modulation. The 3467 had a "quirk" with its data rates at "1200" baud due to an internal jumper which also affected 212A operation; specifically: 212A permits 1182 to 1212 bps (i.e. -1.5% to +1.0%) 3400 #1 permits 1186 to 1204 bps (i.e. -1.2% to +0.3%) 3400 #2 permits 1196 to 1219 bps (i.e. -0.3% to +1.6%) The symptom when connecting using a 212A modem to that site when they had set the jumper to the "3400 #2" position was chaos after some 30 characters or so. Luckily Racal-Vadic was local (to me) and I got a manual, read about this problem, and had to hound that site for 6 months before they acknowledged and fixed THEIR configuration error. >I've offered to go to that site and help them out, but they won't even lend >me their CODEX manuals; the model number is, I believe, 2264 (or something >like that). If ANYONE has managed to call a T2500 or 9624LE from a CODEX >at 9600, I would be greatly appreciative knowing HOW you did it so I can >relay the info to the "troublesome" site. Lon: If you want a Codex 2264 manual [And the 2264 is a V.32 Lon: modem, not a V.32bis] why don't you just call Codex? I've Lon: never had any problem getting a manual.... I don't know where CODEX is located! :-) And, as I stated, that troublesome site has to CALL ME BACK due to their security procedures, so it's their nickel, not mine, if they want to tie up their lines 4 to 8 times longer at 2400 baud. I've offered to help them, I've clearly described the problem to them repeatedly, etc.; I suspect they simply don't want to RTFM since they're able to call their own CODEX (from a CODEX). And, believe me, I'm no babe-in-the-woods when it comes to modems, having used modems since the early '60s. One of my present commercial products (which I designed: schematic, PC layout, software, etc.) is a "device" that connects between host computers and modems and is used primarily by phone companies and the DoD, for whom I have tested hundreds of different modems since that product's introduction in 1983. Interestingly, none of the modems (supplied by the clients) have been CODEX; you figure! :-) Lon: The "troublesome" site just MIGHT be YOU...and this Lon: company has no problems whatever connecting with other Lon: CCITT compliant modems at 9.6 to 38.4 bits/sec async. Lon: Hopefully they would refuse to "properly" configure their Lon: fully compliant V.32 modems just to talk to your Lon: proprietary ones....have you ever considered buying a Lon: compliant modem if you want the faster speeds? Lon: V.22bis is about the fastest speed you have in Lon: common...although I'll admit it mystifies me why you can't Lon: connect at V.22bis at 9600 with compression enabled. I saw your "...MIGHT be YOU...", but I disagree for ALL the reasons stated earlier in this reply. Having just "joined" this newsgroup (my previous "personal" site was PORTAL (yeah, "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned ..." :-) ), I must have missed all prior discussion concerning V.32 issues. Are you asserting that CODEX is V.32 compliant and that Telebit and Digicom are NOT compliant? With all due respect and in fairness to that troublesome site, they DID admit earlier CODEX V.32 modems had severe problems with V.32 multi-mode handshaking; they were also informed by CODEX that ALL problems are fixed with the new 2264 MNP 5 modems. Sigh, such appears to NOT be the case in light of my continuing problems ONLY with them and their CODEX modems. I'm not going to embarrass "them" publicly, so don't ask. For the record, my Telebit T2500 modems have firmware "Version GF7.00-T2500SA" and my Digicom 9624LE modems have (arrgh! cannot locate the manual to find the command :-) "{the latest version}". I have heard CODEX is a reputable company, so I have no reason to disbelieve their claims of V.32 compliance. Same for Telebit and for Digicom. Since my modems communicate fine with all 30+ OTHER sites, the ONLY conclusion I can draw is that one site has misconfigured their modems. So I repeat my plea: If ANYONE has managed to call *INTO* a Telebit T2500 or Digicom 9624LE *FROM* a CODEX 2264 at 9600 or 19200, I would be greatly appreciative knowing HOW you did it so I can relay the info to a "troublesome" site. Also for the record, "my" site is NOT the one in the sig (below); BTR.COM is a public access site on which I maintain a personal account to transact matters such as this and user group activities, so please don't pester their postmaster since my T2500 and 9624LE interoperate with BTR's Telebit (and other) modems just fine. :-) Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad ]
tnixon@hayes.uucp (02/28/91)
In article <146297@pyramid.pyramid.com>, lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes: > In article <1930@public.BTR.COM> thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) writes: >>... >>This is ridiculous, since my site has Telebit T2500, Digicom 9624LE, and >>other, modems with which I have NO problems calling other sites successfully >>at 9600 and 19200 baud. >> > Sorry to burst your bubble Thad, but the fault is entirely > YOURS. Perhaps if you could obtain a REAL V.32 modem and > configure it properly you could attach at 9.6, 19.2, 38.4. >... > Hopefully they would refuse to "properly" configure their > fully compliant V.32 modems just to talk to your > proprietary ones....have you ever considered buying a > compliant modem if you want the faster speeds? > > V.22bis is about the fastest speed you have in > common...although I'll admit it mystifies me why you can't > connect at V.22bis at 9600 with compression enabled. Actually, Lon, the T2500 does have CCITT V.32 modulation, and most V.32-compliant modems (including Hayes Ultra 96) have no trouble connecting with T2500s. The Digicom 9624LE is also a V.32-compliant modem. I think your flaming of Thad was undeserved. -- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (02/28/91)
In article <1939@public.BTR.COM> thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) writes: < slander of IMHO the best international class V.32 available.....blaming the modem vendor, not the operator> <slanders deleted. shame on you > > >To be best of my knowledge, that one site in Palo Alto is the only one in MY >"universe" with CODEX modems, hence my original statements. The original >poster wanted feedback, so I related my experience interfacing with CODEX. > So you slander the modem, not the obviously incompatible configuration between your site and that specific site? >And as I replied to others in email, that same site has been troublesome for >over a decade, beginning with their mis-configuration of Racal-Vadic 3467 >Triple Modems when 1200 baud was de rigeur. I fought tooth-and-nail with >them for over 6 months during 1979 before they said "Oh, you're right, Thad, >sorry, we'll fix it in a jiffy," and they did. This statement makes me wonder even more why you slander the modem instead of the site. > >Are you asserting that CODEX is V.32 compliant and that Telebit and Digicom >are NOT compliant? > I am certainly asserting that the 2264 and the Phillips/TRT V.32's are just about the MOST compliant V.32's available. >With all due respect and in fairness to that troublesome site, they DID admit >earlier CODEX V.32 modems had severe problems with V.32 multi-mode handshaking; >they were also informed by CODEX that ALL problems are fixed with the new 2264 >MNP 5 modems. > You can have them check to see if their Codexi are at the proper rev level by having them check the Software Part Numbers under the "AUX" menus. These are two sets of numbers, they must press the "bullseye" button to get the second....the final 2 digits of the SECOND set of numbers should be "51" (Rev code 5.1) or higher..... >Sigh, such appears to NOT be the case in light of my continuing problems ONLY >with them and their CODEX modems. I'm not going to embarrass "them" publicly, >so don't ask. My only quarrel is with the statement "and their Codex modems". If you are having a problem with "them" that is different.,... I don't know what geographic area you are in or I would offer the number of (Bay area) Codex sales office. I can't imagine why you would prefer to "embarass" Codex rather than the real culprit...doesn't seem fair. If you know exactly how your modems are set up on your end, you should be able to figure out how the Codex or other modem on the other end will have to be configured to match this... just generic "settings for Telebit to Codex" may or may not work in your specific application...but with your experience I would presume you already know this. I would give you Codex's number for Dial Products, but they are a typical large company with the typical large "when in doubt transfer the call" means of dealing with questions...and all they would do is refer you to the local sales office anyway.... In the event you are not familiar with the Codex 2264, it is easily programmed from the front panel....you can even save the old settings for safety while doing so.... You could use AT commands, but I wouldn't try it without the operator's manual anyway.... You will need your settings and the manual....maybe then "the site" might be willing to experiment. If you can't find a local Codex sales office in the Yellow pages, give me the nearest largest city and I'll give you their location. PS for the record, I don't have any relationship whatever with Codex other than actual field experience with their products.....with specific emphasis on the 2264/66....
thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) (02/28/91)
In article <146486@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes: >[...] Sigh. Seems every newsgroup has its share of opinionated chest-beaters who, in my opinion: - continuously demonstrate their lack of reading comprehension, - veil their apparent vested interests, - provide NO useful information to others, - disinform via allegations, - malign that which is not their personal favorite, and - sidestep technical matters. As I previously stated, "I have heard CODEX is a reputable company, so I have no reason to disbelieve their claims of V.32 compliance. Same for Telebit and for Digicom." Yet Lon rags on about CODEX being fully V.32 compliant and then insinuates Telebit and Digicom are only partially compliant. Such an assertion is akin to describing a mother-to-be in her third trimester as being "a little bit pregnant" or a corpse as being "a little bit dead." :-) The situation with V.32 is NOT like the decade-ago horrors of 1200 baud operation. Either the modems ARE compliant or they ARE NOT compliant. So, Lon, which is it? And then he opines CODEX is the "best" without providing a comparative list, failing again to respond to the original poster's request for any INFORMATION about CODEX, good or bad. From the anecdotes I presented regarding the "troublesome site" which, by the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, is H-P Labs in Palo Alto (5 or 6 miles from both Lon's and my sites), there must be "something" about the latest model CODEX 2264 with MNP 5 which either: - prevents it operating well with other V.32 compliant modems, - still exhibits multi-mode handshaking problems, or - is so difficult to setup that not even H-P's experts can do it. So, Lon, which is it? I have no vested or pecuniary interest in any of the companies whose modem products I own and/or use (ARK, Digicom, MultiTech, Telebit, and Ven-Tel). My personal experience with CODEX products is bad. My interest in helping the "troublesome site" is not selfish, so again my plea: If ANYONE has managed to call *INTO* a Telebit T2500 or Digicom 9624LE *FROM* a CODEX 2264 at 9600 or 19200, I would be greatly appreciative knowing HOW you did it so I can relay the info to a "troublesome" site. So, Lon, can you help and not pontificate? Since we're local to each other, I can setup a dialup to my system for you to aid the resolution of the problem, and we can post the findings to this newsgroup. It's too bad you didn't come to the UNIX Users' Group meeting this evening, just 4 miles from Pyramid, at which we could have possibly resolved the matter then and there, and you could also have seen the Telebit NetBlazer operate. Are there any CODEX employees reading this newsgroup who can also help? Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad ]
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (03/01/91)
In article <1952@public.BTR.COM> thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) writes: > >The situation with V.32 is NOT like the decade-ago horrors of 1200 baud >operation. Either the modems ARE compliant or they ARE NOT compliant. > Check the European homologation lists....the PTT's over there are pretty fussy about compliance. However, rather than continuing the "my modem is more compliant than your modem" theme.... > >From the anecdotes I presented regarding the "troublesome site" which, by the >way, if you haven't figured it out yet, is H-P Labs in Palo Alto (5 or 6 miles >from both Lon's and my sites), there must be "something" about the latest model >CODEX 2264 with MNP 5 which either: > > - prevents it operating well with other V.32 compliant modems, > - still exhibits multi-mode handshaking problems, or > - is so difficult to setup that not even H-P's experts can do it. > The Codex certainly has never been accused of being intuitively obvious to configure. I has a LOT of options...much like the TB series. Small mismatches in just about any of them will prevent higher speed use. Since you are local, you can contact Codex locally at 415-341-1616. Ask for either Don Kelly or Bruce Stewart and you should be able to get a set-up manual for the Codex unit. If you are still unable to connect, I might be able to help if you provide the setup on your modem and the Codex....although as you noted, it is not your nickel...
root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) (03/01/91)
Thaddeus P. Floryan (thad@public.BTR.COM ) wrote: >Sigh. Seems every newsgroup has its share of opinionated >chest-beaters who, in my opinion: > - continuously demonstrate their lack of reading comprehension, > - veil their apparent vested interests, > - provide NO useful information to others, > - disinform via allegations, > - malign that which is not their personal favorite, and > - sidestep technical matters. If these habits bothered you so much, then why do you exhibit some of them? I've read the thread and believe that you do not have an exclusive firm grasp of what was said! >Yet Lon rags on about CODEX being fully V.32 compliant and >then insinuates Telebit and Digicom are only partially compliant. Lon did not insinuate partial compliance; he merely countered what he thought was a suggestion on your part that CODEX was not fully compliant. He also explicitly stated that configuration, and not standards compliance, might not be the problem. This seems to have fallen on deaf ears. >The situation with V.32 is NOT like the decade-ago horrors >of 1200 baud operation. Either the modems ARE compliant >or they ARE NOT compliant. I disagree strongly! The standards are more complex than ever, and marginal compliance, i.e. modems which follow the basic standard but only connect well with certain other modems, is more commonplace than ever. Furthermore, satisfactory connections once depended only on the two modems supporting the same standard. Today even perfectly compliant V.32 (or any other standard) modems may connect poorly (or not at all) because of their configurations. While on that topic, I should comment that almost every high speed modem owner or user has a very firm idea of how they should be configured, and I've *never*, in years of looking, found someone whose ideas match mine. The result is that I tell people *not* to put too much faith in the default configurations published by others because they may work only in specific circumstances - I reached this conclusion only after noting that many setup "experts" have an all or nothing result, i.e. they can configure a modem in a few minutes and it will either work perfectly or not at all because they've only put into it what worked for them in hit and miss trials elsewhere... they really don't know what they're doing! I admit that I fall into that general field, with my only redeeming qualities being that I have used several varieties of high speed modems over the years in a wide range of applications, and that I do have a background, however sparse, in electrical engineering... including communications. >And then he opines CODEX is the "best" without providing a >comparative list, >failing again to respond to the original poster's request >for any INFORMATION about CODEX, good or bad. What he said was that they always worked for him, and that he would regard with suspicion any suggestion of imperfections. >My personal experience with CODEX products is bad. That's fine, but you don't expect someone with years' good experience with CODEX to accept your word for it, do you? -- UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org | Kitchener, Ontario FidoNet: SYSOP, 1:221/171 | N2M 5E6 CANADA Data: (519) 742-8939 | (519) 741-9553 The mile is traversed not by a single leap, but by a procession of coherent steps; those who insist on making the trip in a single element will be failing long after you and I have discovered new worlds. - me
thad@btr.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) (03/01/91)
Just a quick update regarding CODEX' interoperability with Telebit and Digicom:
1) it's not my intent to embarrass CODEX
2) I've received some helpful suggestions via email which I will pursue
3) Lon and I have amicably exchanged email and there is NO feud or "bad blood"
between us (as several have intimated in email)
4) I examined my /usr/lib/uucp/Systems file and found an old comment to myself
that one of the modems at Ohio State (osu-cis) is a CODEX 2264 with which
I've successfully connected at 9600 many times.
4a) difference being: I call osu-cis (contrasted with H-P Labs calling me)
4b) suggesting the problem NOW, more than likely, is a configuration problem
at the calling party's end; sigh, hope this isn't going to be the harbinger
of another 6 months' hounding and haranguing (like the ol' Racal-Vadic
episode was 12 years ago).
I'll keep y'all posted regarding the outcome.
Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad ]tnixon@hayes.uucp (03/04/91)
In article <6894.27CDE028@zswamp.fidonet.org>, root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > I disagree strongly! The standards are more complex than ever, and > marginal compliance, i.e. modems which follow the basic standard but only > connect well with certain other modems, is more commonplace than ever. I should also point out that "marginal compliance" is not the only reason one sees variations between modems from different manufacturers. CCITT modulations standards quite purposely and specifically defined ONLY the TRANSMITTER of the modem; the operation of the receiver is left of to the skills of the implementer. This makes sense; the purpose of the standard is to insure that the modems put the signal on the line properly, not to constrain the technology used to demodulate the signal. You also see considerable differences in the performance of V.42 and V.42bis between modems. The standards specify the encoding of the protocol and compressed data on the phone line, but don't (and shouldn't) specify the type or speed of microprocessor to use, the amount of memory available, the quality of firmware code that is written to implement the protocols, or much of anything else! _Connectivity_ should be accomplished if both implementations are compliant, but _performance_ may vary widely between compliant implementations! Actually testing is necessary to determine how various modems will perform. The trade press reviews devices and publishes tests, but the testing methods vary so widely and the results are so different that you really can't depend on what you read in the press to help make a decision on which modem to buy. It's truly a matter of luck which modem comes out on top in a particular magazine's article. -- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (03/08/91)
In article <1968@public.BTR.COM> thad@btr.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) writes: >Just a quick update regarding CODEX' interoperability with Telebit and Digicom: > > >3) Lon and I have amicably exchanged email and there is NO feud or "bad blood" > between us (as several have intimated in email) Please allow me to ASSURE everyone that there is not, and never has been, any type of bad feelings between Thad and myself.... even on topics where we have agreed that we disagree. Goodness, if everyone always agreed we would still be communicating at 57.5 baud over 60 mil current loops.
bourman@hpcc01.HP.COM (Bob Bourman) (04/18/91)
/ hpcc01:comp.dcom.modems / thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) / 3:57 am Feb 26, 1991 /
In article <1991Feb25.122859.26635@europa.asd.contel.com> enger@seka.scc.com writes:
#>Folks:
#>
#>Does anyone have any experience with the CODEX V.32bis modem?
#>Anything (good or bad) to report? Anything at all?
#One site (BIG; one of the world's largest mfrs of test equipment and computers
#located in Palo Alto CA) that has to callback my site due to security has a
#large number of the latest CODEX modems (with MNP 5 even), and the highest
#speed at which we can connect is 2400 baud.
#This is ridiculous, since my site has Telebit T2500, Digicom 9624LE, and
#other, modems with which I have NO problems calling other sites successfully
#at 9600 and 19200 baud.
#Unless that site has incompetently mis-configured their CODEX modems ('tis
#possible :-), based on my experience in this regards I would never under any
#circumstances buy a CODEX product.
#I've offered to go to that site and help them out, but they won't even lend
#me their CODEX manuals; the model number is, I believe, 2264 (or something
#like that). If ANYONE has managed to call a T2500 or 9624LE from a CODEX
#at 9600, I would be greatly appreciative knowing HOW you did it so I can
#relay the info to the "troublesome" site.
#Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad ]
----------
Thad, the Digicom is an AMD chip based modem and the Telebit is
also a propretary chip set/scheme. Just like the USR HST modems
you will not always get a good V.32 connection with a Rockwell or
Motorolla chip based V.32 modem. Most propetary scheme modems
will try to sync up in their own mode first and then fall back
to the V.32 handshake. There is a problem with this. The t1
timer in most modems defaults to .3, .8, or 1.6 sec for the V.32
hand shake. You need to increase this to the max time of 3 sec.
to give the modem time to connect. In the case of dialback, you hane
two ways to configure the line cards. One will make the dialback
system wait for answer tone before switching the phone line
to the modem. This can cause the answering modem to time out on
the the V.32 handshake and fall back to V.22bis. If you configure
the dialback system to switch to the modem as soon as the last
digit is dialed (early ring up) the modem will be ready
when the answering modem (home) picks up the line and will hear
the V.32 handshake. You my have to configure the propretary modem
to ignore PEP or shorten the PEP protocol handshake time period
(I'm not familiar with the T1500 or T2500) and increase the T1
timer to 3sec. If the dialback system is set for Answer (a/a1)
wake-up, then the connected dial back modem must wake up in
originate mode or YOU have to answer in quiet mode (originate ATR).
If the dialback system is configured for MI/MIC then the originating
modem will wake up in originate mode and you can use auto answer
mode on your home modem (ATS0=1).
Don't know if this helps.... I have seen problems with the TB and
USR modems connecting to standard V.32 modems before. I try to
stay away from propretary modem schemes. I don't like Rockwell
or AMD either.... I guess that leaves DSP.......
Some modems have a problem with V.32 retrain. They drop carrier
during the retrain sequence, thus dropping the line. This was/is
the problem with the Rockwell chip set.
Blab, Blab, Blab.... I'm out of here..... 8*)
BOBB