(ASCEND) v.90 code still running
owner-asc...@max.bungi.com
Well, I'm still up and running on 6.1.3 with no problems that I can see and
no calls from the users. I've heard horror stories about IP pool's leaking
and such but I am still looking good. 4 days now.
What am I doing right?
Mark Foreman
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-use...@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd: <http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
owner-asc...@max.bungi.com
At 10:21 AM 7/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Well, I'm still up and running on 6.1.3 with no problems that I can see and
>no calls from the users. I've heard horror stories about IP pool's leaking
>and such but I am still looking good. 4 days now.
>
>What am I doing right?
>
Actually I'd like to know what I'm doing 'wrong' (grin).. Ascend Engineers
have agreed to work with me on this one, as I'm also running 6.1.3 on a
4048, accepting both 56K and ISDN callers, and loose typically 5 or more
IP's out of the pool per hour. Reset required 3-4 times a day if not more
(Customers wanting to know why Ithey can't stay connected).
22 People online and stats as below:
flex%sh up
system uptime: up 0 days, 0 hours, 25 minutes, 32 seconds
flex%sh po
Pool# Base Count InUse
1 207.239.221.21 48 24
Number of remaining allocated addresses: 0
***** Top Net InterNet Services *****
Omaha, Nebraska Husker Heaven
www.top.net (402) 291-1542
Visit Our BBS at: www.hawgwild.com
owner-asc...@max.bungi.com
We're running 6.1.3 ,no stacking, no rip, and have no ISDN callers
or MPP on this particular PoP, and it's been up more than 10 days.
No problems whatsoever, and I've FINALLY gotten a faster-than-26.4
connect from my house. Logged in at 41.333 and it's flying. K56FLEX
never would go above 28.8 from here.
'Shot
owner-asc...@max.bungi.com
The guy "doing it right" is simply not accepting digital (ISDN) calls using
MPP. That is the cause of the IP address pool leak.
The guy "doing it wrong" isn't really doing anything wrong other than
trusting Ascend to release firmware that works. The IP pool leaks are
from failed MPP calls. The 'slow leaking' of your pools is probably due
to a low ratio of analog to digital callers.
Review the mailing list for more details and extrapolations on the above
subjects.
At 01:43 PM 7/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:21 AM 7/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>Well, I'm still up and running on 6.1.3 with no problems that I can see and
>>no calls from the users. I've heard horror stories about IP pool's leaking
>>and such but I am still looking good. 4 days now.
>>
>>What am I doing right?
>>
>
> Actually I'd like to know what I'm doing 'wrong' (grin).. Ascend Engineers
>have agreed to work with me on this one, as I'm also running 6.1.3 on a
>4048, accepting both 56K and ISDN callers, and loose typically 5 or more
>IP's out of the pool per hour. Reset required 3-4 times a day if not more
>(Customers wanting to know why Ithey can't stay connected).
>
>22 People online and stats as below:
>
>flex%sh up
>system uptime: up 0 days, 0 hours, 25 minutes, 32 seconds
>
>flex%sh po
>
>Pool# Base Count InUse
> 1 207.239.221.21 48 24
>
> Number of remaining allocated addresses: 0
>***** Top Net InterNet Services *****
>Omaha, Nebraska Husker Heaven
>www.top.net (402) 291-1542
> Visit Our BBS at: www.hawgwild.com
owner-asc...@max.bungi.com
It seems to be all releated to dual channel calls, Are you offering
128K calls from this box?
Jason Nealis
Director Internet Operations / Network Access
Erols Internet (An RCN Company)
owner-asc...@max.bungi.com
Yea, I agree, So do most of my users, People all over are seeing
increases in speed and they also seem to be getting a stable connect
in opposed to the KFLEX connections, I'm seeing a lot less Disconnect
codes 185's with the V.90 code.
Jason Nealis
Director Internet Operations / Network Access
Erols Internet (An RCN Company)
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Darkshot wrote:
> We're running 6.1.3 ,no stacking, no rip, and have no ISDN callers
> or MPP on this particular PoP, and it's been up more than 10 days.
> No problems whatsoever, and I've FINALLY gotten a faster-than-26.4
> connect from my house. Logged in at 41.333 and it's flying. K56FLEX
> never would go above 28.8 from here.
>
> 'Shot
owner-asc...@max.bungi.com
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Jim Logan wrote:
> flex%sh up
> system uptime: up 0 days, 0 hours, 25 minutes, 32 seconds
>
> flex%sh po
>
> Pool# Base Count InUse
> 1 207.239.221.21 48 24
>
> Number of remaining allocated addresses: 0
Ok. I'm going to interject here :).. These are my 3 Maxen. They
all report 0 free addresses, but don't exhibit any problems. Now I
wouldn't put it past me to have something so mis-configured as to make it
work correctly :). Keep in mind that I don't run stacking. Real, Real
simple network, 2 public, 1 private max. Proxy-Arp Mode, Static Routes to
and from the Max to a Cisco 2514, Analog on 2 Max, MLPPP on 1 Max, and
DOVBS on the 3 Max. No Disconnects, Great Flex Connects, Great V.90
Connects (just the USR Spiral Problem), No dial out, as it causes all
three maxes to reboot immediately ;)
ascend% sho up
system uptime: up 53 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, 9 seconds
ascend% sho rev
Ascend-Max system revision: tik.m40 5.0Ap6
ascend% sho po
Pool# Base Count InUse
1 205.160.182.100 49 28
Number of remaining allocated addresses: 0
ascend%
ascend-2%sh up
system uptime: up 40 days, 4 hours, 35 minutes, 52 seconds
ascend-2%sh rev
Ascend-Max-2 system revision: ftk.m40 6.0.2
ascend-2%sh po
Pool# Base Count InUse
1 205.160.182.200 49 3
Number of remaining allocated addresses: 0
ascend-2%
ascend-3%sh up
system uptime: up 4 days, 2 hours, 11 minutes, 24 seconds
ascend-3%sh rev
Ascend-Max-2 system revision: ftk.m40 6.1.3
ascend-3%sh po
Pool# Base Count InUse
1 205.160.182.200 49 0
Number of remaining allocated addresses: 0
ascend-3%
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Craig Salmond mailto:cr...@cde.com
Craig's DATA Exchange! http://www.cde.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shipping Address Billing Address
Craig's DATA Exchange! (352) 735-2331 Sales Craig's DATA Exchange!
18826 U.S. HWY 441 (352) 735-9511 FAX P.O. Box 1401
Mt. Dora, FL 32757 (352) 742-1515 DIAL-UP Mt. Dora, FL 32756
"Lake County's Internet Authority"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
owner-asc...@max.bungi.com
>The guy "doing it right" is simply not accepting digital (ISDN) calls using
>MPP. That is the cause of the IP address pool leak.
I've been running 6.1.3 for over a week now and I accept ISDN calls, as
well as analog, using multi-link PPP. So far, so good. No IP pool leaks.
Is there a difference between MP and MPP when used in the IP pool leak context?
Thanks,
Marcel
owner-asc...@max.bungi.com
>The guy "doing it right" is simply not accepting digital (ISDN) calls using
>MPP. That is the cause of the IP address pool leak.
>
You are correct. I'm using my older 4000's with 33.6k modem cards for ISDN.
(those buy a 4048, get a 4000 free deals from several months ago)
Mark Foreman
owner-asc...@max.bungi.com
At 04:29 PM 7/6/98 -0500, Marcel Brown wrote:
>>The guy "doing it right" is simply not accepting digital (ISDN) calls using
>>MPP. That is the cause of the IP address pool leak.
>
>well as analog, using multi-link PPP. So far, so good. No IP pool leaks.
Actually I think the secret here is that you *are* allowing MP calls. Those
that are not, and get *failed* attempts as a result seem to be getting the
pool leak most prevalently.
>Is there a difference between MP and MPP when used in the IP pool leak
context?
Not implicitly. Most likely with MPP the *attempt* to add a second channel is
not attempted when not "allowed" (due to the negotiation in MPP). With MP,
it's
a try-it-and-see approach. [See, MP+ does still have some merits!].
Kevin Smith Ascend Communications...
Customer Satisfaction ...where Network Solutions never end.
owner-asc...@max.bungi.com
Craig Salmond wrote:
]
] Ok. I'm going to interject here :).. These are my 3 Maxen. They
]all report 0 free addresses, but don't exhibit any problems.
fyi... "Number of remaining allocated addresses:" does not mean
"free addresses". it has to do with if you change your ip pools,
and there are still outstanding addresses. see the archives for
details.
___________________________________________________________________________
Joe Pautler, E.I.T. University at Buffalo
CIT/OSS Network Engineering 224 Computing Center
http://www.oss.buffalo.edu/~pautler (716) 645-3536
owner-asc...@max.bungi.com
>At 04:29 PM 7/6/98 -0500, Marcel Brown wrote:
>>>The guy "doing it right" is simply not accepting digital (ISDN) calls using
>>>MPP. That is the cause of the IP address pool leak.
>>
>>I've been running 6.1.3 for over a week now and I accept ISDN calls, as
>>well as analog, using multi-link PPP. So far, so good. No IP pool leaks.
>
>Actually I think the secret here is that you *are* allowing MP calls. Those
>that are not, and get *failed* attempts as a result seem to be getting the
>pool leak most prevalently.
>
the user "doing it right" doesn't have any digital calls coming into
his system (ie: he's only accepting analog modem calls). This makes
his system less likely to have failed MPP calls, since most analog
callers use one channel (with obvious exceptions - Shotgun, etc). Still
his exposure to failed MPP calls is significantly lower if he has
analog-only callers into his system.
I hate to tippy-toe around like this - bottom line is that the
code is broken for all practical purposes and it needs to be fixed - NOW.
V.90 is a high-demand item. ISPs using Ascend gear are dead in the
water waiting for stable code. It's a shame that Ascend can't release
5.0Ap52 (or something) which uses 5.0ApXX base code with v.90 modem support.
5.0ApXX code has been stable and working for a while.