From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Dec  9 11:10:52 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA07731
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 11:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA07726
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 11:10:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA05663; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 11:09:35 -0800
To: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey)
cc: chuckr@glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey), hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD Hackers)
Subject: Re: Who's working on ISDN? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 09 Dec 1995 19:21:00 +0100."
             <199512091821.TAA02565@allegro.lemis.de> 
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 1995 11:09:35 -0800
Message-ID: <5661.818536175@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

The real story is that some Central Offices in the U.S. are able to
offer real 64K B channels and some can't, especially if the endpoints
span multiple COs.  It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the
switch (I know people running real, measured, 64K speeds on both the
AT&T 5ESS and NT DMS-100 switches) and would appear to be more of a
factor involving trunk bandwidth between COs.

A friend at Cisco just got bumped from 56K to 64K as a result of some
PacBell upgrade, and he's a considerable distance away from the Cisco
side, so evidently the problem is being dealt with (at least in the
S.F. Bay Area)

					Jordan