Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 19:28:07 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: tom@sdf.com (Tom Samplonius) Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jamil@counterintelligence.ml.org Subject: Re: ISDN drivers/cards Message-ID: <199708100028.TAA05009@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970809164526.4113A-100000@misery.sdf.com> from Tom Samplonius at "Aug 9, 97 04:55:39 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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 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. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708100028.TAA05009>