Your problem is caused by a bug in the TAOS running on your max. If you go to diagnostics and enter the command "avm" (or "lanp modem" for those running TAOS 8+) you will see the Max's internal list of its modems broken down into several categories. The free list, busy list, and dead list are pretty self explanatory. The real interesting items are the suspect list and disabled list (or W195 list if running 8+). The max keeps track of how many bad calls each modem receives and if it exceeds a certain threshold it puts the modem on the suspect list. Once on the suspect list the max will only use that modem after all others are taken. If it continues to take bad calls the modem will be moved to the disabled list (or W195 list). At this point the max absolutely will not use this modem under any circumstances until the entire modem card has been reset. Unfortunately, the max will not reset the modem card until every single user has disconnected from that card. At which point the max will automatically reset the modem card and put it back in service. The end result of this #@%@^%ed up process is that if you have one single user still connected to a 16 port modem card that the max has decided to put on the W195 list, you will essentially be missing 15 modems, as the max will _not_ use them. On a fully loaded 6096 this means that you have 15 more incoming phone lines than modems. The max will still attempt to take these 15 calls by directing them to the HDLC drivers (same thing it uses for digital ISDN) since there are no modems available. Hence, your callers receive terrible high pitched digital tones instead of the warm and friendly modem tones they were expecting. So, how do you fix it? For a temporary fix you can either manually kick off the users still connected to whichever card is on the 195 list or you can reset the max. For a permanent fix you can downgrade or upgrade your TAOS. 7.0.4 and 7.0.22 both work well for us. 9.0.X is supposed to fix this issue...but it still seems to occur, although not so often. Unfortunately, 9.0.X seems to have plenty of other bugs to make up for any fixes. We have worked extensively with Lucent's top tier techs and engineers and they knew even less about the problem than I did. They did provide a couple test releases based on TAOS 8 code but it was really nothing more than a nice gesture from a well intentioned, if rather incompetent staff. A couple other items and then I'm back to the coal mines: You can use "fatal-history" from diagnostics to see when this problem occurs even after the fact. It will be listed as Warning: 195 blah blah blah... No one seems 100% sure of what constitutes a "bad" call. I believe that any call which the max receives but cannot complete is bad. Which means that a bad trunk on a T1 or an old lady repeatedly dialing your max instead of her daughter, will both tend to exacerbates this problem. We have maxes in many different cities and have seen this problem occur on every combination of ESF/D4 and B8ZS/AMI. It occurs on both channelized T1's and ISDN PRI. We have 5 different Telco's which provide us access and it has occurred on equipment in each of the 5 Telco's regions. Lucent is clueless. Hope this helps. ---Dave Montgomery -----Original Message----- From: owner-ascend-users at max.bungi.com [mailto:owner-ascend-users at max.bungi.com]On Behalf Of Dennis Duval Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 6:15 PM To: ascend-users at bungi.com Subject: Re: (ASCEND) Caller receives solid high-pitch tone (off-topic rant) I wish they would set the list reply to the list address instead of the poster address. Half the traffic on this topic (and I suspect most topics) end up off list, because people think they are replying to the list. I'm guilty of doing that. And yes I know all the arguments against doing that, but all responses to a list posting (except personal attacks, etc) should go back to the list for everyone to share. It SHOULD be more difficult to respond off-list than on-list. I've recieved about 10 replies off-list defining CHT1 -- thank you all though. (end rant) > >Channelized T1 is what I was talking about. >Sounds like you have the same problem. > >Bad thing is downgrading to 6.1.7, you will need to partially re-config the max. >Back up your current config before downgrading. > I'm not saying that this wouldn't fix the problem, and I certainly appreciate the suggestion, but I don't see it as a practical solution for a new Max 6000. The whole purpose of having new equipment is to take advantage of the software and firmware upgrades which are no longer being provided for the EOL'd 4000 series. In addition, I have been running version 7.2.3 for maybe a year and half at the other location on 16 T1's which are also plain channelized T1 (CHT1 for those lovers of TLA's and FLA's :). Those units have been totally bulletproof. Admittedly, it is a different switch, but essentially the same type of lines. I'm intrigued by Suzie Ward's comment that version 9 may have some fix for "this". I don't mind going to version 9 if I just knew what "this" is. I don't think my problem is related to any type of overload on the telco, because calls were coming in successfully on the WAN1 and WAN2 at the same time all calls were failing on WAN3 and WAN4. Moving the T1's from WAN3 and WAN4 to a Max4000 also cleared up the problem. I'm down to only one T1 coming into WAN1 on the new 6096 now and I am still seeing the error messages in the radius log, but very rarely, like 1 to 4 per hour. Its impossible to say if those error messages have the solid high-tone pitch associated with them, but I would say it is very likely. Maybe its time to get a Lucent engineer on the phone. (cringing at the thought of dealing with Lucent "support"). Dennis Duval ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++ To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request at bungi.com To get FAQ'd: <http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq> ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++ To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request at bungi.com To get FAQ'd: <http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>