Configuring DMS-100 Channelized T1 data calls to ISDN
Frank Suraci
Hi,
We need some help in properly configuring a channelized T1 on a
DMS-100 so that out-going calls from our Ascend MAX on that
channelized T1 are tagged as data rather than voice calls. We have no
problem placing ISDN calls into the MAX on the channelized T1 from the
P50, but calls made from the MAX to the P50 are ignored because the
calls are tagged as voice and we have not been able to configure the
P50 to answer voice tagged calls as data.
We have verified that this is in fact the problem by replacing the P50
with a Bitsurfer Pro. The BS ignored all calls coming in from the MAX
until we configured it to also answer calls marked as voice.
Thanks in advance for your help
Frank Suraci
fra...@hcrn.com
Joe Vallender
calls, including bearer capability? Can you verify at the DMS side,
exactly what is in the Q931 SETUP message for bearer capability, if
anything? There is an office parameter in the DMS100 for DEFAULT BEARER
CAPABILITY. It normally is set to SPEECH. If the incoming call from the
MAX has no bearer capability, the default SPEECH is probably used.
Is the T1 between the MAX and the DMS100 a PRI? What does Ascend tech
support say?
Joe Vallender
Frank Suraci wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We need some help in properly configuring a channelized T1 on a
> DMS-100 so that out-going calls from our Ascend MAX on that
> channelized T1 are tagged as data rather than voice calls. We have no
> problem placing ISDN calls into the MAX on the channelized T1 from the
> P50, but calls made from the MAX to the P50 are ignored because the
> calls are tagged as voice and we have not been able to configure the
> P50 to answer voice tagged calls as data.
>
> We have verified that this is in fact the problem by replacing the P50
> with a Bitsurfer Pro. The BS ignored all calls coming in from the MAX
> until we configured it to also answer calls marked as voice.
>
the bearer capability, then there's an option in the DMS100 table TRKGRP
to specify the default BC used for calls on that trunk group. If the
option BCNAME is not specified, then the default for the office (SPEECH)
is used. The value in BCNAME comes from one of the entries in the table
BCDEF (Bearer Capability Definitions) and should be 56KDATA or 64KDATA.
If you look at these tables and options, you might resolve the problem.
Laurence V. Marks
In <34CEF5...@sprintmail.com>, Joe Vallender <javal...@sprintmail.com> writes:
> If the T1 is not a PRI, and does not have the capability of passing
>the bearer capability, then there's an option in the DMS100 table TRKGRP
>to specify the default BC used for calls on that trunk group. If the
>option BCNAME is not specified, then the default for the office (SPEECH)
>is used. The value in BCNAME comes from one of the entries in the table
>BCDEF (Bearer Capability Definitions) and should be 56KDATA or 64KDATA.
>If you look at these tables and options, you might resolve the problem.
Cool! I was not aware that the DMS-100 could be provisioned to insert BC on a
CT-1, and (mistakenly) so stated in a different thread where this was also
posted, Thanks, Joe!
Laurence V. Marks
IBM Corp. - Research Triangle Park, NC
David Lesher
fra...@hcrn.com (Frank Suraci) writes:
>Hi,
>We need some help in properly configuring a channelized T1 on a
>DMS-100 so that out-going calls from our Ascend MAX on that
>channelized T1 are tagged as data rather than voice calls. We have no
>problem placing ISDN calls into the MAX on the channelized T1 from the
>P50, but calls made from the MAX to the P50 are ignored because the
>calls are tagged as voice and we have not been able to configure the
>P50 to answer voice tagged calls as data.
Hmm.. I coulda sworn there was a way to answer incoming DOVBS
on a Pipe 50. Have you looked at the Ascend-users FAQ:
<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq> or the mailing list?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Jeffrey Rhodes
Laurence V. Marks wrote:
>:
And, of course, this is why there really is no justification for Data
Over Voice (DOVBS/DOSBS) from an "ISDN island". Any bit-robbing, 56kbps
data limited *voice* T-1, can support a data trunk group "bridge" to
ISDN. Some ISDN equipment manufacturers may have been fooled into
believing that DOV is the only solution for ISDN islands. Today most
commercial ISDN TA and routers support a hobbled form of DOV, to support
56kbps limited data operation (on trunks and calls that may easily
support 64kbps), and these calls will be billed as regular ISDN voice
calls.
Individuals may justify ISDN DOV calling ala civil disobedience. I never
saw AT&T build any ISDN terminal equipment that supports ISDN DOV. It
will be interesting to see what happens to the Livingston router line
now that Lucent owns them. You don't see many businesses adopting the
business case to support *making* ISDN DOV calls, only the ISP's
business case to *receive* DOV calls seems to be without too much legal
grey area.
Someday even analog modems and faxes may be required to pay a surcharge
for data transport.
Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey...@attws.com
Robert Blackshaw
Jeffrey Rhodes <jeffrey...@attws.com> wrote:
<snip>
>And, of course, this is why there really is no justification for Data
>Over Voice (DOVBS/DOSBS) from an "ISDN island". Any bit-robbing, 56kbps
>data limited *voice* T-1, can support a data trunk group "bridge" to
>ISDN. Some ISDN equipment manufacturers may have been fooled into
>believing that DOV is the only solution for ISDN islands. Today most
>commercial ISDN TA and routers support a hobbled form of DOV, to support
>56kbps limited data operation (on trunks and calls that may easily
>support 64kbps), and these calls will be billed as regular ISDN voice
>calls.
>Individuals may justify ISDN DOV calling ala civil disobedience. I never
>saw AT&T build any ISDN terminal equipment that supports ISDN DOV. It
>will be interesting to see what happens to the Livingston router line
>now that Lucent owns them. You don't see many businesses adopting the
>business case to support *making* ISDN DOV calls, only the ISP's
>business case to *receive* DOV calls seems to be without too much legal
>grey area.
>Someday even analog modems and faxes may be required to pay a surcharge
>for data transport.
That would be supreme idiocy. Modems were designed to transport
data over the PSTN (POTS to you). Since they use the same bandwidth
as a voice call what would be the justification for such an assinine idea?
I recall, during my Bell Canada days, some jackass in the government
suggesting that we block data calls at the border because the data
base of the credit companies was outside their juridiction. After we
picked ourselves off the floor we politely inquired as to how we were
to distinguish a data bit from a PCM bit.
Detroit seems to be walking away from the "everything but the chassis
is an extra cost option" just as the LECs are adopting this hoary old
chestnut. In about 5 years Bosnia will have better communications
than we do.
Bob
"Since when was genius found respectable?"
E. B. Browning
Jeffrey Rhodes
Robert Blackshaw wrote:
>:
>: Jeffrey Rhodes <jeffrey...@attws.com> wrote:
>:
> >Someday even analog modems and faxes may be required to pay a surcharge
> >for data transport.
>:
>: That would be supreme idiocy. Modems were designed to transport
>: data over the PSTN (POTS to you). Since they use the same bandwidth
>: as a voice call what would be the justification for such an assinine idea?
LECs and CLECs might not find the idea so bad. It's easy enough to spot
the use of modems, fax and DOV, vs. normal human conversation, when
carried on a DSO of an interswitch T-1, without an illegal wiretap. The
justification would be to create more wealth for the stockholders of
companies deregulated by the 1996 Telecom Act. Or to give voice-only
users a cost reduction for the decreased interswitch burden their
substantially lower hold-time calling creates when compared to the
hold-times of modems, fax and DOV calling. You probably think that
metering Internet IP telephony long distance calls at six cents a minute
is an assinine idea since Internet E-mail is "unmetered" and shares the
same Internet bandwidth?
I wonder which BCS gave DMS-100 the ability to assign a default BC for
calls arriving on a specific trunk group? 5ESS ISDN has ALWAYS had this
capability, maybe I need to recognise DMS-100's *contributions* to
56kbps limited DOV within the USA.
Regards, jcr
Frank Heisler
Robert Blackshaw (blck...@clark.net) wrote:
: base of the credit companies was outside their juridiction. After we
: picked ourselves off the floor we politely inquired as to how we were
: to distinguish a data bit from a PCM bit.
Geez, I thought I was the only crapping my pants with laughter with that
one... What ever happened to those cronies?
--
Cheeri'o...
Frank...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Blackshaw
fra...@dns.tlug.org (Frank Heisler) wrote:
>Robert Blackshaw (blck...@clark.net) wrote:
>: base of the credit companies was outside their juridiction. After we
>: picked ourselves off the floor we politely inquired as to how we were
>: to distinguish a data bit from a PCM bit.
>Geez, I thought I was the only crapping my pants with laughter with that
>one... What ever happened to those cronies?
Dunno, been down here some 14 years and kinda lost touch.
Bob
>--
>Cheeri'o...
> Frank...
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since when was genius found respectable?"
E. B. Browning
Hank Karl
> LECs and CLECs might not find the idea so bad. It's easy enough to spot
> the use of modems, fax and DOV, vs. normal human conversation, when
> carried on a DSO of an interswitch T-1, without an illegal wiretap.
Its even easier for them to corrupt the data with a "feature" like
true voice. There's lots of filters (and compressions) that can be
applied to the datastream that won't adversely affect the perceived
quality of voice, but will stop DOVBS dead. I suspect that some
transforms can also corrupt faster modems and perhaps faxes.
-----------------------------------
Hank Karl
Opinions mine, not my company's
to reply, remove the "imnothere" from my address
Eric Hildum
Jeffrey Rhodes wrote:
>
>
> Or to give voice-only
> users a cost reduction for the decreased interswitch burden their
> substantially lower hold-time calling creates when compared to the
> hold-times of modems, fax and DOV calling.
So speaks someone without teenaged children... Even US West is on record
in a court case as admitting that voice traffic hold times are not that
different from modem traffic. Fax traffic, of course, is normally
shorter than most voice calls.
Jeffrey Rhodes
Hold times are the symptom, not the solution. US West did not admit that
AVERAGE hold times are different. I doubt teenage talk time has changed
much in the last 30 years where the average hold time for human
conversations via telephones has remained very constant. Modem and fax
users have longer hold times than 30 years ago, each year there are more
of them, far more than the increase in teenagers, which has probably
been shrinking actuarilly. While faxes may be shorter than voice calls,
they are inefficient, since they use 64kbps of PSTN transmission
bandwidth for a mere 14,400bps of data. Also, if every modem data call
were to hang up after six minutes, the interswitch trunk expansion
problem with its corresponding increased cost, would not get any better,
and probably would get worse, since it takes almost a minute to dialin
and authenticate to an ISP.
Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey...@attws.com
Jeffrey Rhodes
Hank Karl wrote:
>:
>: On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 15:50:48 -0800, Jeffrey Rhodes
>: <jeffrey...@attws.com> wrote:
>
> > LECs and CLECs might not find the idea so bad. It's easy enough to spot
> > the use of modems, fax and DOV, vs. normal human conversation, when
> > carried on a DSO of an interswitch T-1, without an illegal wiretap.
>: Its even easier for them to corrupt the data with a "feature" like
>: true voice. There's lots of filters (and compressions) that can be
>: applied to the datastream that won't adversely affect the perceived
>: quality of voice, but will stop DOVBS dead. I suspect that some
>: transforms can also corrupt faster modems and perhaps faxes.
Why prevent modems, fax and DOV? Just charge more to discourage their
use on a CLEC's voice-preferred network.
I think it will be a while before residential high speed data access
will be able to substitute for voice services. It strikes me kind of
funny that E-mail is unmetered (hence we get so much junk E-mail) but IP
telephony will be metered for long distance. If a data network needs to
charge more for voice transport, a voice network should charge more for
data transport.
Regards, jcr
Frank Heisler
Hank Karl (hankimno...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Its even easier for them to corrupt the data with a "feature" like
: true voice. There's lots of filters (and compressions) that can be
: applied to the datastream that won't adversely affect the perceived
: quality of voice, but will stop DOVBS dead. I suspect that some
: transforms can also corrupt faster modems and perhaps faxes.
I don't think TrueVoice operates over DOV connection, that it has to
terminate at analog end-offices rather than a digital service...
Jan Ceuleers
Hi Jeffrey. We keep bumping into each other ;-)
Jeffrey Rhodes wrote:
> Also, if every modem data call
> were to hang up after six minutes, the interswitch trunk expansion
> problem with its corresponding increased cost, would not get any
> better,
> and probably would get worse, since it takes almost a minute to dialin
> and authenticate to an ISP.
I'm slightly puzzled. From the point of view of the PSTN/ISDN, it really
doesn't matter how much time it takes to log in and how much time is
spent actually exchanging useful information. Why do you mention this?
Also: it doesn't take my machine a minute to log into my ISP (even using
V.34). It's more like 30s and would be dramatically shorter still if my
ISP allowed me to use ISDN without charging more for it.
--
________
\ / Jan Ceuleers, Network and Business Consulting
\ / Alcatel, Switching Systems Division
\ / Alcatel Bell, F. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
\/ tel. +32-3-240-8027 fax +32-3-240-9917 GSM +32-75-314894
Floyd Davidson
Jeffrey Rhodes <jeffrey...@attws.com> wrote:
>Eric Hildum wrote:
>> Jeffrey Rhodes wrote:
>> > Or to give voice-only
>> > users a cost reduction for the decreased interswitch burden their
>> > substantially lower hold-time calling creates when compared to the
>> > hold-times of modems, fax and DOV calling.
>>
>> So speaks someone without teenaged children... Even US West is on record
>> in a court case as admitting that voice traffic hold times are not that
>> different from modem traffic. Fax traffic, of course, is normally
>> shorter than most voice calls.
>
>Hold times are the symptom, not the solution. US West did not admit that
>AVERAGE hold times are different. I doubt teenage talk time has changed
>much in the last 30 years where the average hold time for human
>conversations via telephones has remained very constant. Modem and fax
>users have longer hold times than 30 years ago, each year there are more
>of them, far more than the increase in teenagers, which has probably
>been shrinking actuarilly. While faxes may be shorter than voice calls,
>they are inefficient, since they use 64kbps of PSTN transmission
>were to hang up after six minutes, the interswitch trunk expansion
>problem with its corresponding increased cost, would not get any better,
>and probably would get worse, since it takes almost a minute to dialin
>and authenticate to an ISP.
Lots of information... some of which is accurate some of which
is not... but it all misses the point.
The current flap over modem calls is different than the typical
"modem tax" efforts (and never ending hoaxes) of the past.
There are certainly are more than a few old time telco
management types that still have a myopic view of this in terms
of interswitch trunking overload due to modem callers having a
longer hold time, but that has been discredited as little more
than poor long term planning by individual telephone companies.
Instead we are now at a point where some fundamental decisions
will be made that guide the future of telecommunications and
computer networking and the manner in which they are financed,
implemented, and accessed.
A great deal of effort is going to be required to find just
solutions and appropriate models for planning and
implementation. The concept of Universal Service in relation to
Internet access has come to the attention of Congress, the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National
Telecommunications and Inforation Administration (NTIA). It has
come to their attention in a _big_ way, and they are not going
to back off until they accomplish what they think will be a
solution.
Here is a direct quote from the web page of Alaska's Senator
Ted Stevens:
"... is a report I requested from the Federal Communication
Commission on Universal Service. The language is contained
in the bill H.R. 2267, which funds the FCC. ..."
"Universal Service is the concept that no matter where you
live in the United States, you should have access to the
latest developments in telecommunication at similar costs.
People in Shishmaref or Sitka should have the same access
to the same technology as phone customers in New York City."
...
"The report I requested does not seek per minute fees or
access charges. It simply asks the FCC to review its
policies to ensure that some telecommunications providers
are not avoiding their responsibilities to preserve
Universal Service."
For more information:
NTIA home page:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/index.html
Universal Service info:
http://www.pulpny.org/CAM/
FCC public notice reference to Senator Stevens request outline above:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da980002.html
Comments submitted to the FCC:
http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/comments.html
FCC information and downloadable comments:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Comments/report2congress/rtccom.html
Note that in the dowloadable comments (a 2.3Mb zip file) there
is a comment filed by Senators Stevens and Burns which has caused
significant discussion on the Alaska Telecommunications Forum mailing
list. Below is a short synopsis provided by one reader of the
most interesting arguments in one section:
> 1) Internet users keep the switched circuit to their house
> open longer than long-distance callers;
>
> 2) Long-distance calls cost the consumer much more than
> (usually local) calls for internet connectivity;
>
> 3) People will switch to internet telephony to exploit
> this price difference;
>
> 4) The switches and local loop are the most expensive part
> of the infrastructure;
>
> 5) Internet users are getting a free ride because they
> don't pay per-call fees like long distance users to
> subsidize the local loop (this argument is supported
> by an extensive discussion of the cross-subsidies,
> pointing out that a local exchange gets $6.48 when a
> local consumer makes a 2-hour long distance call and
> "nothing from the ISP or the consumer" for the same
> length internet call -- which is news to me and I
> betcha news to Lance as well);
>
> 6) As more people switch to internet telephony,
> "eventually, there will no longer be enough money to
> support the infrastructure needed to make universal
> access to voice or Internet Communications possible,
> and the system will collapse."
>
> After making this dire prediction, the comments disclaim
> support for "applying the current access charge regime to
> Internet communications." It is suggested that "Perhaps"
> the FCC should charge both IXCs and ISPs "a flat monthly
> fee per subscriber for universal service."
>
> =================================================================
> Daniel J. Boone d...@alaska.net
> Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, P.C.
[address and phone numbers snipped]
> Juneau, Alaska 99802
> =================================================================
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@tanana.polarnet.com> Salcha, Alaska
Laurence V. Marks
In <34D602...@attws.com>, Jeffrey Rhodes <jeffrey...@attws.com> writes:
>And, of course, this is why there really is no justification for Data
>Over Voice (DOVBS/DOSBS) from an "ISDN island". Any bit-robbing, 56kbps
>data limited *voice* T-1, can support a data trunk group "bridge" to
>ISDN. Some ISDN equipment manufacturers may have been fooled into
>believing that DOV is the only solution for ISDN islands. Today most
>commercial ISDN TA and routers support a hobbled form of DOV, to support
>56kbps limited data operation (on trunks and calls that may easily
>support 64kbps), and these calls will be billed as regular ISDN voice
>calls.
>
but rational in 1990). You are there in Seattle. I am here in Research
Triangle Park. You have ISDN there in Seattle. I have ISDN here in RTP (or a
T-1 switch configured as described above). But there is no SS-7 path from here
to there. Any data call you place to me or any call I place to you fails with
an error, possibly:
--Cause 34, No Circuit/Channel Available, or
--Cause 44, Requested Circuit/Channel Not Available, or
--Cause 47, Resource Available, or
--Cause 58, Bearer Capability is Not Available, or
--Cause 63, Service or Option Not Available, or
--Cause 65, Bearer Capability Not Implemented, or
--Cause 34, No Circuit/Channel Available, or even
--Cause 127, Internetworking, Unspecified
Now the only way that either of us can place a data call to the other is with
DOV. We have ISDN, but there is no ISDN (SS-7) path between us. This is what
the 'ISDN island' problem is about.
It doesn't matter whether the ISDN gear at the end is PRI or CT-1 with forced
BC.
And if you think that that's a problem of the past, remember that PacBell
struggled with it just a few years ago, and many users there are still using
10-digit dialing within the same NPA as a workaround.
Jeffrey Rhodes
Jan Ceuleers wrote:
>:
>: Hi Jeffrey. We keep bumping into each other ;-)
Hello, Jan
> Jeffrey Rhodes wrote:
>
> > Also, if every modem data call
> > were to hang up after six minutes, the interswitch trunk expansion
> > problem with its corresponding increased cost, would not get any
> > better,
> > and probably would get worse, since it takes almost a minute to dialin
> > and authenticate to an ISP.
>
>: I'm slightly puzzled. From the point of view of the PSTN/ISDN, it really
>: doesn't matter how much time it takes to log in and how much time is
>: spent actually exchanging useful information. Why do you mention this?
I like to use the long hold time citation of analog modem Internet
access as an argument for a CLEC to build its own voice-preferred access
service via fixed wireless. By limiting data usage, the CLEC's new
switches could support a larger line-to-trunk ratio, which is more cost
effective than their ILEC competitor. By integrating a macrosystem
Digital PCS cellphone to a microsystem cordless extension of a home
private base station, the fixed wireless CLEC could offer the consumer a
voice-preferred system that concedes high speed data for Internet access
to DSL and cable modems, but then these lack any apparent synergy with
voice mobility. Some people don't want their phone to work as *good* as
their cable TV and their core values reliable voice service.
>:
>: Also: it doesn't take my machine a minute to log into my ISP (even using
>: V.34). It's more like 30s and would be dramatically shorter still if my
>: ISP allowed me to use ISDN without charging more for it.
I guess V.34 is more like 30 seconds, it just seems like a minute ;-).
If the AVERAGE hold time for voice converstation is 6 minutes and the
AVERAGE analog modem Internet session hold time is 30 minutes, then
forcing the analog modem caller to 6 minute calls will cause the
Internet access analog modem caller to AVERAGE 5.5 calls per session,
for a total interswitch trunk usage time of 33 minutes. The per call
hold time would be the same (six minutes), but the trunk usage time is
increased, which exacerbates the problem, thus hold time is a symptom of
the problem, not a solution for the problem. ISDN is amazingly fast,
less than 2 seconds, since there is no negotiation for line speed like
there is with V.34 or V.90 for that matter. Too bad, if ISDN terminal
equipment could negotiate the difference between 56/64K DOV, I would
think the AVERAGE US DOV call would have a better than 50-50 chance
within today's US voice network.
>:
>: --
>: ________
>: \ / Jan Ceuleers, Network and Business Consulting
>: \ / Alcatel, Switching Systems Division
>: \ / Alcatel Bell, F. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
>: \/ tel. +32-3-240-8027 fax +32-3-240-9917 GSM +32-75-314894
Regards, jcr
Fred R. Goldstein
In article <267ce$f430.f1@PolarNet>, fl...@tanana.polarnet.com says...
>Here is a direct quote from the web page of Alaska's Senator
>Ted Stevens:
> "The report I requested does not seek per minute fees or
> access charges. It simply asks the FCC to review its
> policies to ensure that some telecommunications providers
> are not avoiding their responsibilities to preserve
> Universal Service."
>Note that in the dowloadable comments (a 2.3Mb zip file) there
>is a comment filed by Senators Stevens and Burns which has caused
>significant discussion on the Alaska Telecommunications Forum mailing
>list. Below is a short synopsis provided by one reader of the
>most interesting arguments in one section:
>> 4) The switches and local loop are the most expensive part
>> of the infrastructure;
>>
>> 5) Internet users are getting a free ride because they
>> don't pay per-call fees like long distance users to
>> subsidize the local loop (this argument is supported
>> by an extensive discussion of the cross-subsidies,
>> pointing out that a local exchange gets $6.48 when a
>> local consumer makes a 2-hour long distance call and
>> "nothing from the ISP or the consumer" for the same
>> length internet call -- which is news to me and I
>> betcha news to Lance as well);
Does Not Follow. Yes, IXCs pay huge subsidies to the local loop, though it's
declining somewhat under current FCC policies. So IXCs get raped weekly
instead of daily, but they'r still raped. ISPs are simply subscribers.
Subscribers do not get raped the same way. However, not being raped is not
the same as being a rapist, nor is an ISP receiving any "free ride" -- they
do pay for their connections, often at business-digital-line rates way above
cost.
>> 6) As more people switch to internet telephony,
>> "eventually, there will no longer be enough money to
>> support the infrastructure needed to make universal
>> access to voice or Internet Communications possible,
>> and the system will collapse."
Long stretch to assume Internet telephony will ever matter. Everybody wants
to use a Sound Blaster, IRC and stupid programs to make phone calls? Hell
no, most people wanna talk on the phone! Internet telephony is a substitute
for CB radio, only worldwide. If an Internet Telephony Service Provider
hooks up ordinary phones to the local network (as Qwest and IDT plan or do),
then they are IXCs and should be charged accordingly, for those calls that
arrive from phones in voice format. Using IP in your IXC interoffice trunking
doesn't make you no longer an IXC, though I'm sure IDT pretends otherwise.
--
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.