bruce@ccavax.camb.com (09/12/90)
In the interest of being able to use a small (and MUCH less expensive) cisco box, but to also use a dual port serial line card, we opted for the rs-422 interface. It would be 'nice' if a wide selection of CSU/DSUs all came with the rs-422 interface, but they don't. I suspect that some clever cable pinning might well have solved the problem, but a 'no-brainer' solution presented itself in the RAD catalog. This was an rs-422 to v.35 cable with conversion circuitry buried in one of the connector shells. At $150, this was an 'ouch', but certainly a lot cheaper than buying a larger cisco box just to cater to fat connectors. First, I would like to ask if there is some obvious simpler solution I missed, and then I would like to suggest that cisco could have been a bit more considerate in their packaging and design. Some vendors simply use a vanilla DB25 connector for everything, and depend on different cards or even simply switches or jumpers internally to convert from one standard to another. They DO use non standard pinning for some of the leads, and a short well documented cable is available to make the transition to the desired connector, but many users will have custom cables made to the full length needed simply by FAXing a copy of the cable's print or even referencing the original manufacturers print #, as most cable houses have vast libraries of such prints and do this sort of thing daily. Even a small quantity (1 even) of such cables is often DRAMATICALLY cheaper from one of the good cable houses, and the customer should be free buy that sort of thing where he pleases. cisco's packaging cost me needless money and hassle. I wonder what cisco suggests for someone in the position I was in? Do they even care about such issues?
bruce@ccavax.camb.com (09/17/90)
In article <32254.26ecffbd@ccavax.camb.com>, bruce@ccavax.camb.com writes: > In the interest of being able to use a small (and MUCH less expensive) > cisco box, but to also use a dual port serial line card, we opted for > the rs-422 interface. It would be 'nice' if a wide selection of CSU/DSUs > all came with the rs-422 interface, but they don't. > ... > cisco's packaging cost me needless money and hassle. > I wonder what cisco suggests for someone in the position I was in? Do they > even care about such issues? After posting that I got a prompt detailed answer from cisco. They seem to have chosen to not publicly detail their future connector plans, so I won't copy the mail here. I had initially assumed the answer would arrive here, but since it hasn't, I am posting this. I was quite pleased with the response, and obviously they do care!
bruce@ccavax.camb.com (09/19/90)
I previously said: > After posting that I got a prompt detailed answer from cisco. They seem to > have chosen to not publicly detail their future connector plans, so I > won't copy the mail here. I had initially assumed the answer would I seems cisco does want this info out, and since I have been getting mail requesting more info about what they said, here it is: Subj: v35 connectorization To: ccavax.camb.com!bruce, spot.colorado.edu!cisco Cc: cisco.com!cs Subject: v35 connectorization Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 13:42:36 MDT From: uupsi!cisco.com!jimo A new applique has been developed that directly addresses the issue of connector size. Additionally the applique will support DCE operation as well as DTE operation depending on the cable ordered. It will be shipping this fall. The main reason in the past for using "standard" connectors is that there are a substantial number of users that want both the mechanical and electrical specifications to be met. I'm not sure what the ordering details will be for these new appliques. This new applique has a three row, high density D-sub type connector that is about the same size as a 9 pin D-sub which will allow you to have two in the smaller box. -Jim O'Neil Hardware Engineering cisco Systems, Inc. jimo@cisco.com