Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 8:59:27 MET From: Greg Lehey <lehey.pad@sni.de> To: gjennejohn@frt.dec.com Cc: isdn@muc.ditec.de (Distribution List; FreeBSD ISDN), hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: ISDN: "modem" or board? (Was: Microsoft "Get ISDN"?) Message-ID: <199603200802.JAA05305@nixpbe.pdb.sni.de> In-Reply-To: <9603191615.AA19570@cssmuc.frt.dec.com>; from "garyj@frt.dec.com" at Mar 19, 96 5:15 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary Jennejohn writes: > > lehey.pad@sni.de writes: >> They could well be right. That's one of the reasons why we're waiting >> for you to install the stuff :-) I don't think it would be the >> boards, though: they're so primitive that I don't think there would be >> anything to change. > > this is probably correct, since we don't use the Teles board in > auto mode and do all the LAPD in software. The question is, do the > TelCos use Q.931 ? That's what our lap driver uses. Or is it Q.921 ? My understanding is that Q.921 is layer 2, and Q.931 is layer 3 of DSS1. I suspect that Q.921 is common to other signalling implementations as well--can anybody shed light on this? >> My bet is that the CAPI would be different. That >> could pose severe problems for the FreeBSD implementation, at least >> until we find out what the differences are. > > CAPI ? FBSD don't use no steenkin' CAPI ! (the bandits in "The > Treasure of the Sierra Madre" never said "steenkin'", BTW) :-) > We program the boards ourselves and provide a simple tty interface > for AT type commands. Of course it doesn't. But Teles does. My claim was that, when Teles told Jordan that the boards were different in the US, they were really referring to a modified CAPI which could handle, for example, the 56 kb/s castrated ISDN used in some areas. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603200802.JAA05305>