Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!decwrl!mejac!gryphon!vector!telecom-request From: ssc-vax!clark@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Roger Clark Swann) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Call Forwarding Capacity Message-ID: Date: 4 Aug 88 22:00:16 GMT Sender: chip@vector.UUCP Lines: 29 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp (USENET Telecom Moderator) X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 8, issue 121, message 6 X-Submissions-To: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu (Mailing List Coordinator) X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp (USENET Telecom Moderator) >From Telecom Digest Volume 8, issue 119 Patrick Townson writes: >On the same subject, some of our prefixes here allow 'chain forwarding', while >others do not. In chain forwarding, A forwards to B, B to C, C to D, and D to >E. A call arriving on A is bumped along to B then C then D then E in a matter >of an extra couple seconds or so. The only limit to chain forwarding is a >practical one: The transmission gets very poor after 2-3 links. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What??? Why??? How??? If A,B,C,D,E are in the same ESS office, Then the number of chains in the the forwarding should have nothing to do with the quality of the transmission since the controller looks up the forwarding route and tells the switch matrix to make the right *end* connections. In this case it would be connect A to E ( one link ). Now if A,B,C,D,E are located in different offices, then the chaining may effect the quality since the call would progress through each office in the chain. However, I would be surprised if one could notice a reduction in quality through only 3 ESS type offices... Am I totally washed up here or what??? Maybe someone that knows ESS system architecture could comment one the above... Roger Swann uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark