Re: (ASCEND) Huntgroup rollover on Max

[Peter Lalor <plalor@infoasis.com>]

>From: Peter Galbavy <Peter.Galbavy@knowledge.com>
>
>On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 01:25:31PM +0100, Blaz Zupan wrote:
>  > We have a Max 6000 evaluation unit and I'm wondering about the following.
>  > The 6000 supports 4 E1's (we're in Europe), so this is 120 channels. But
>  > it only supports a maximum of 96 analog modems. Now let's say we have 8
>  > E1's in a huntgroup, 4 on the first Max and 4 on a second Max. Let's say
>  > that all 96 analog modems on the first max are occupied and the 97th call
>  > comes in. Will it correctly hunt to the second Max, which will be able to
>  > accept it, because it has analog modems available? I was told by the
>  > company that gave me the evaluation unit that this is possible, but I have
>  > the feeling they are just trying to sell me the box and would even tell
>  > me that I can slice and dice with it :-)
>
>  > I'm asking because this is simply not possible on PM3's. If the above
>  > scenario would happen on a PM3, the user would get a busy. The only way to
>  > fix this would be to have forward on busy, but then we'd have to pay for
>  > the forwarded calls.
>
>There are various hacks that you can do to make this work, but I would
>recommend using just 3 PRI's and 96 modems - keeping the 6 as hot
>spares that are rotated through the pool. This also solves a few
>probelsm when things get busy in terms of modem reset times etc.

If it's going to be the case that your 8 PRI are going to require 3 
Max 6000s (3+3+2) to avoid this problem, a Max TNT might be a better 
(and cheaper?) choice. A single 8-E1 card and as many modem cards as 
you need would do the job.


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