I think a channelized T1 sends 193 bit frames as well. 8 for each channel plus 1 for timing = 193.
All T1's are channelized, otherwise it would have to be some sort of byte-synch communication, which isn't plausible. I think the tech you spoke to is incorrect as well. ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > 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=47888&t=47844 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
