John,
There's nothing wrong with your understanding of channelized vs.
unchannelized. I believe your provider's tech dosen't understand or is
completely mis-informed.
Nigel
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Neiberger"
To:
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 12:10 PM
Subject: Confusion: Channelized and Unchannelized T1 [7:47844]
> Just when I thought I understood the T1 world pretty well we've run into
> a situation that is thoroughly confusing me.
>
> I was under the impression that channelized T1 services used 24
> timeslots. I call that 'channelized' because it has 24 distinct
> 'channels'. It's my understanding that unchannelized T1 doesn't use the
> 24 timeslots and instead sends one giant 192-bit frame.
>
> At one of our locations we are muxing voice and data traffic onto a
> single T1. At each end we split off certain channels to a router and
> other channels over to the PBX. To do this, wouldn't the T1 *have* to
> be channelized, since we're separating the channels at the CSU/DSU?
> According to our provider, that circuit is unchannelized. If a circuit
> is truly unchannelized, how would the CSU/DSU be able to accurately
> split the T1 into two separate streams based on channel information?
>
> To be more clear, let's say we have the CSU/DSU configured to split
> channels 1-12 to the router and 13-24 to the PBX. This splitting
> function is based on the assumption that channels exist on the incoming
> T1. If they don't exist and we have one giant frame instead of 24
> smaller frames, how could this possibly be working??
>
> Yowza...my head hurts.
>
> John
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47887&t=47844
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
