Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!public!thad From: thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: CODEX V.32bis Modems: Experiences? Keywords: codex v32bis v.32bis Message-ID: <1939@public.BTR.COM> Date: 27 Feb 91 10:55:14 GMT References: <146297@pyramid.pyramid.com> Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA, Contact: cs@btr.com 415-966-1429 Lines: 138 In article <146297@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes: >In article <1930@public.BTR.COM> thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) writes: >One site (BIG; one of the world's largest mfrs of test equipment and computers >located in Palo Alto CA) that has to callback my site due to security has a >large number of the latest CODEX modems (with MNP 5 even), and the highest >speed at which we can connect is 2400 baud. > >This is ridiculous, since my site has Telebit T2500, Digicom 9624LE, and >other, modems with which I have NO problems calling other sites successfully >at 9600 and 19200 baud. Lon: Sorry to burst your bubble Thad, but the fault is entirely Lon: YOURS. Perhaps if you could obtain a REAL V.32 modem and Lon: configure it properly you could attach at 9.6, 19.2, 38.4. Oh? Then I'm sure the Federal Trade Commission would be interested in your report that Telebit and Digicom LIE and MISREPRESENT THEMSELVES when they claim REAL V.32 capability. :-) >Unless that site has incompetently mis-configured their CODEX modems ('tis >possible :-), based on my experience in this regards I would never under any >circumstances buy a CODEX product. Lon: I hate to repeat myself, but perhaps the fault is NOT at Lon: the remote site. Can your modems connect with ANY CCITT Lon: compliant V.32 modem? Yes, my site connects just fine at 19200 and 9600 to all OTHER sites using V.32 and/or PEP. It's only that ONE SITE with the problem. My site has two Telebit T2500, two Digicom 9624LE, and two ARK24K modems, and everything works just fine polling and being polled to/from everywhere EXCEPT that one site; my connectivity at present is to over 30 sites directly-called worldwide, so your allegation my site has a problem is a non sequitur. To be best of my knowledge, that one site in Palo Alto is the only one in MY "universe" with CODEX modems, hence my original statements. The original poster wanted feedback, so I related my experience interfacing with CODEX. And as I replied to others in email, that same site has been troublesome for over a decade, beginning with their mis-configuration of Racal-Vadic 3467 Triple Modems when 1200 baud was de rigeur. I fought tooth-and-nail with them for over 6 months during 1979 before they said "Oh, you're right, Thad, sorry, we'll fix it in a jiffy," and they did. For those who forget, those old Racal-Vadic modems supported 103, 212A and VA3400 modulation. The 3467 had a "quirk" with its data rates at "1200" baud due to an internal jumper which also affected 212A operation; specifically: 212A permits 1182 to 1212 bps (i.e. -1.5% to +1.0%) 3400 #1 permits 1186 to 1204 bps (i.e. -1.2% to +0.3%) 3400 #2 permits 1196 to 1219 bps (i.e. -0.3% to +1.6%) The symptom when connecting using a 212A modem to that site when they had set the jumper to the "3400 #2" position was chaos after some 30 characters or so. Luckily Racal-Vadic was local (to me) and I got a manual, read about this problem, and had to hound that site for 6 months before they acknowledged and fixed THEIR configuration error. >I've offered to go to that site and help them out, but they won't even lend >me their CODEX manuals; the model number is, I believe, 2264 (or something >like that). If ANYONE has managed to call a T2500 or 9624LE from a CODEX >at 9600, I would be greatly appreciative knowing HOW you did it so I can >relay the info to the "troublesome" site. Lon: If you want a Codex 2264 manual [And the 2264 is a V.32 Lon: modem, not a V.32bis] why don't you just call Codex? I've Lon: never had any problem getting a manual.... I don't know where CODEX is located! :-) And, as I stated, that troublesome site has to CALL ME BACK due to their security procedures, so it's their nickel, not mine, if they want to tie up their lines 4 to 8 times longer at 2400 baud. I've offered to help them, I've clearly described the problem to them repeatedly, etc.; I suspect they simply don't want to RTFM since they're able to call their own CODEX (from a CODEX). And, believe me, I'm no babe-in-the-woods when it comes to modems, having used modems since the early '60s. One of my present commercial products (which I designed: schematic, PC layout, software, etc.) is a "device" that connects between host computers and modems and is used primarily by phone companies and the DoD, for whom I have tested hundreds of different modems since that product's introduction in 1983. Interestingly, none of the modems (supplied by the clients) have been CODEX; you figure! :-) Lon: The "troublesome" site just MIGHT be YOU...and this Lon: company has no problems whatever connecting with other Lon: CCITT compliant modems at 9.6 to 38.4 bits/sec async. Lon: Hopefully they would refuse to "properly" configure their Lon: fully compliant V.32 modems just to talk to your Lon: proprietary ones....have you ever considered buying a Lon: compliant modem if you want the faster speeds? Lon: V.22bis is about the fastest speed you have in Lon: common...although I'll admit it mystifies me why you can't Lon: connect at V.22bis at 9600 with compression enabled. I saw your "...MIGHT be YOU...", but I disagree for ALL the reasons stated earlier in this reply. Having just "joined" this newsgroup (my previous "personal" site was PORTAL (yeah, "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned ..." :-) ), I must have missed all prior discussion concerning V.32 issues. Are you asserting that CODEX is V.32 compliant and that Telebit and Digicom are NOT compliant? With all due respect and in fairness to that troublesome site, they DID admit earlier CODEX V.32 modems had severe problems with V.32 multi-mode handshaking; they were also informed by CODEX that ALL problems are fixed with the new 2264 MNP 5 modems. Sigh, such appears to NOT be the case in light of my continuing problems ONLY with them and their CODEX modems. I'm not going to embarrass "them" publicly, so don't ask. For the record, my Telebit T2500 modems have firmware "Version GF7.00-T2500SA" and my Digicom 9624LE modems have (arrgh! cannot locate the manual to find the command :-) "{the latest version}". I have heard CODEX is a reputable company, so I have no reason to disbelieve their claims of V.32 compliance. Same for Telebit and for Digicom. Since my modems communicate fine with all 30+ OTHER sites, the ONLY conclusion I can draw is that one site has misconfigured their modems. So I repeat my plea: If ANYONE has managed to call *INTO* a Telebit T2500 or Digicom 9624LE *FROM* a CODEX 2264 at 9600 or 19200, I would be greatly appreciative knowing HOW you did it so I can relay the info to a "troublesome" site. Also for the record, "my" site is NOT the one in the sig (below); BTR.COM is a public access site on which I maintain a personal account to transact matters such as this and user group activities, so please don't pester their postmaster since my T2500 and 9624LE interoperate with BTR's Telebit (and other) modems just fine. :-) Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad ]