Re: Mica Modems in Cisco AS5300, Connect Rates

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by azizia@gmail.com, Jan 25, 2005.

  1. Guest

    modemcap entry quazar:MSC=&f&d2s0=3 s53=0 s50=56000 s30=33600 s34=0
    s39=7 s7=90 s52=1
    Michael O'Reilly wrote:
    > (Aaron Leonard) writes:
    >
    > > In article <>, Michael O'Reilly

    <> writes:
    > > |
    > > |Terribly bad at far as I can see. We get 92% in australia from

    ISDN
    > > |PRI's (30 channel ea) running into as5300's with MICA modems. We

    have
    > > |a number of 5300s all with around that connect rate.
    > > |
    > > |Note that there are a number of really bad bugs relating to the

    IOS or
    > > |MICA somewhere. In particular, if you have a non-zero asyncmap
    > > |anywhere it apparently does terrible things to the reliabilty of

    the
    > > |PPP connections.
    > >
    > > That's DDTs CSCdj71639, fixed in 11.2(11.1)x, 11.2(11)P1, 11.3(2)x.

    >
    > Hmm. We found it in 11.2(11)P1. Is this a different bug?
    >
    >
    >
    > (ps: what is it with all these magic Big ID's that give:
    >
    > Sorry -- The defect you've requested '%71639' - cannot be
    > displayed.
    > This may be due to one or more of the following:
    >
    > 1.The defect number does not exist
    > 2.The defect does not have a customer-visible description

    available yet
    > 3.The defect has been marked Cisco Confidential which is usually
    > done for security purposes or for entries that do not have
    > customer impact
    >
    > What exactly _IS_ bug CSCdj71639?)
    >
    > Michael.
     
    , Jan 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 25 Jan 2005 03:39:49 -0800, wrote:

    ~
    ~ modemcap entry quazar:MSC=&f&d2s0=3 s53=0 s50=56000 s30=33600 s34=0
    ~ s39=7 s7=90 s52=1
    ~ Michael O'Reilly wrote:
    ~ > (Aaron Leonard) writes:
    ~ >
    ~ > > In article <>, Michael O'Reilly
    ~ <> writes:
    ~ > > |
    ~ > > |Terribly bad at far as I can see. We get 92% in australia from
    ~ ISDN
    ~ > > |PRI's (30 channel ea) running into as5300's with MICA modems. We
    ~ have
    ~ > > |a number of 5300s all with around that connect rate.
    ~ > > |
    ~ > > |Note that there are a number of really bad bugs relating to the
    ~ IOS or
    ~ > > |MICA somewhere. In particular, if you have a non-zero asyncmap
    ~ > > |anywhere it apparently does terrible things to the reliabilty of
    ~ the
    ~ > > |PPP connections.
    ~ > >
    ~ > > That's DDTs CSCdj71639, fixed in 11.2(11.1)x, 11.2(11)P1, 11.3(2)x.
    ~ >
    ~ > Hmm. We found it in 11.2(11)P1. Is this a different bug?
    ~ >
    ~ >
    ~ >
    ~ > (ps: what is it with all these magic Big ID's that give:
    ~ >
    ~ > Sorry -- The defect you've requested '%71639' - cannot be
    ~ > displayed.
    ~ > This may be due to one or more of the following:
    ~ >
    ~ > 1.The defect number does not exist
    ~ > 2.The defect does not have a customer-visible description
    ~ available yet
    ~ > 3.The defect has been marked Cisco Confidential which is usually
    ~ > done for security purposes or for entries that do not have
    ~ > customer impact
    ~ >
    ~ > What exactly _IS_ bug CSCdj71639?)
    ~ >
    ~ > Michael.

    Re Q1 "what is it with these ...":

    In order for a DDTS (new ones beginning with 'CSCsa' are now called
    CDETS btw) to be customer-viewable on CCO, the following must pertain:

    - the DDTS must be in a project that is declared to be customer-viewable
    (e.g. CSC.sys or CSC.dialtech ... CSC.sys-wish is not customer-viewable)

    - the DDTS must have a Release-note that has been approved by our
    release-note vetting folks

    Re Q2 "What exactly _IS_ bug CSCdj71639?):

    I've updated the Release-note for this DDTS so that it should now
    (soon) be visible:

    CSCdj71639
    Internally found moderate defect: Resolved (R)
    ppp accm for microcode PPP mode not set correctly
    Integrated in 011.003(001.002) 011.002(011.001) 11.3(01.02)T 11.2(11.01)P
    11.3(01.02)Q 11.2(11.01)BC 11.2(11)P01 11.3(01.03)CI 11.3(02)XA

    Release-note: Modified 050125 by aaron

    PPP on async interfaces may not apply the negotiated
    ACCM mask correctly. As a result, PPP transmissions
    may fail. This is a regression introduced by CSCdj63179.

    CSCdj63179 is btw:

    CSCdj63179
    Internally found moderate defect: Resolved (R)
    incoming bytes lost by async autoselect for PPP
    Integrated in 011.002(010.004) 11.2(10.04)P 011.003(001.001)
    11.3(01.01)T 11.2(11)BC 11.3(01.01)Q 11.3(02)XA

    So, yes, if you see some problem in 11.2(11)P1, then it would not be
    CSCdj71639, but something else.

    Cheers,

    Aaron
     
    Aaron Leonard, Jan 25, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andrzej

    ISDN PRI and MICA modems

    Andrzej, Dec 6, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    478
    FireSword
    Dec 6, 2003
  2. Pavlov
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    518
    Pavlov
    Apr 10, 2004
  3. Pavlov

    AS5300: Disable MICA modem

    Pavlov, Jun 10, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    677
    Aaron Leonard
    Jun 24, 2004
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    499
  5. Robert Hass

    MICA modems allocation on AS5300

    Robert Hass, Feb 26, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    757
    Aaron Leonard
    Feb 27, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page