From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Dec 11 16:08:47 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id QAA17248
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:08:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bubba.tribe.com ([205.184.207.7])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA17237
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:08:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from archie@localhost) by bubba.tribe.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA07435; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:04:37 -0800
From: Archie Cobbs <archie@tribe.com>
Message-Id: <199512120004.QAA07435@bubba.tribe.com>
Subject: Re: Who's working on ISDN?
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:04:37 -0800 (PST)
Cc: grog@lemis.de, chuckr@glue.umd.edu, hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <5661.818536175@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Dec 9, 95 11:09:35 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk


> The real story is that some Central Offices in the U.S. are able to
> offer real 64K B channels and some can't, especially if the endpoints
> span multiple COs.  It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the
> switch (I know people running real, measured, 64K speeds on both the
> AT&T 5ESS and NT DMS-100 switches) and would appear to be more of a
> factor involving trunk bandwidth between COs.
> 
> A friend at Cisco just got bumped from 56K to 64K as a result of some
> PacBell upgrade, and he's a considerable distance away from the Cisco
> side, so evidently the problem is being dealt with (at least in the
> S.F. Bay Area)

PacBell claims they'll have 100% clear channel 64K in California real soon...

-Archie

_______________________________________________________________________________
Archie L. Cobbs, archie@tribe.com  *  Tribe Computer Works http://www.tribe.com