From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Aug  9 17:43:05 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA23295
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 17:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.210.193])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA23288;
          Sat, 9 Aug 1997 17:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tom by misery.sdf.com with smtp (Exim 1.62 #1)
	id 0wxM4R-00015u-00; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 17:41:23 -0700
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 17:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>
To: dyson@freebsd.org
cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@freebsd.org,
        jamil@counterintelligence.ml.org
Subject: Re: ISDN drivers/cards
In-Reply-To: <199708100028.TAA05009@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970809173017.4192A-100000@misery.sdf.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


On Sat, 9 Aug 1997, John S. Dyson wrote:

> > On Sat, 9 Aug 1997, J Wunsch wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > > Unfortunately, the ISDN landscape in the US is different from Europe.
> > > Your Telco's didn't even decide for a single switch protocol yet, nor
> > > do they market ISDN as *I*SDN.  In the result, you are left alone to
> > 
> >   NI-1 is standard.  I place the blame for non-NI-1 on the switch
> > manufactures.  DMS-100 is close, but not quite.  AT&T ISDN is just weird.
> > 
> I was involved/tracking the various ISDN standards.  NI-1 is pathetic, mostly
> due to the non-AT&T switch manufacturers very lame implementations.  Other
> switch manufacturers have been holding back progress.  NI-2 is better, but

  I'm aware of anyone using NI-2 on BRI.  I'm pretty sure NI-2 is only for
PRI.  I'm not aware of any end-user device that can do NI-2 on BRI either.

> still not up to the level of AT&T-custom ISDN in a few areas.  Features are
> just beginning to appear that AT&T has had for years.  As I have heard, the
> NT, etc switches still can't deal with new upcoming ISDN standards (and still
> have quality of implementation issues.)  Note that AT&T also does support NI-1
> as well as it's own (original, relatively full featured) implementation.

  I'm not sure what lacking features you are refering to.  I know there
are a lot of flexibilty problems, like being able to pu POTS lines and
PRIs under the same pilot number.

  I'm not sure how difficult this can be, as GTE has gotten their ancient
GDT-5 switch talking NI-2 too.

> John


Tom