Re: (ASCEND) ITU 56K

To: Jason Nealis <nealis@babylon.erols.com>
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) ITU 56K
From: "Kevin A. Smith" <kevin@ascend.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 12:46:56 -0800
Cc: Ascend Users List <ascend-users@bungi.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980206193520.6439C-100000@babylon.erols.com>
References: <199802061433.JAA03247@nrk.com>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

At 07:50 PM 2/6/98 -0500, Jason Nealis wrote:
>
> OooH god! I remember the headaches of implementing KFLEX in the
>beginning, I just hope that it is fully tested especially backward
>compatibility testing is a must, I can't revert back to beta code
>again, (Tech Support calls will kill me)

The big difference here is that we already have a 56K solution. The
rush to get V.90 to market will not be nearly as urgent as was the
demand for K56xxx. I'm pretty sure we'll have done plenty of backward
compatibility *and* V.90 interoperability testing before it is widely
deployed.

Kevin

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

References:

(ASCEND) ITU 56K

From: David Lesher <wb8foz@nrk.com>

Re: (ASCEND) ITU 56K

From: Jason Nealis <nealis@babylon.erols.com>

Prev by Date: Re: (ASCEND) Problem with rlogin from tnt
Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) Woopeee... 56k ITU Decision (fwd)
Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) ITU 56K
Next by thread: (ASCEND) SNMP traps
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread