Simon,
If you're willing to "try pretty much anything",
then please allow me to repeat my original response to you,
with emphasis added.
I'd probably first try upgrading from 12.0(2a)T1. I'd start with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
12.2(10a) (if feasible) in order to pick up the latest NM-AM
^^^^^^^^^
firmware. (If that isn't an option, I'd go to 12.1(latest) [which
should require no more memory than 12.0T] then manually upgrade to
1.2.2 firmware from http://www.cisco.com/pcgi-bin/tablebuild.pl/x600-analog .)
[ yes there is a good chance of relevant IOS fixes between
12.0(2a)T1 and 12.2(10a) ]
If that doesn't provide relief, then one would want to open a
^^^^^^
TAC case and do some serious troubleshooting. This would involve
^^^^^^^^
varying the client modem, the circuit, and the server modem, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
examining the octets sent and received on each end of each call,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
in order to assess the scope of the problem.
As it turns out, troubleshooting modem problems is hard.
Regards,
Aaron
---> Thanks for all your help, guys.
> I have already manually updated the modem firmware to > 1.2.2 ( c3600-2600-analog-fw.1.2.2.bin ), and the > log I originally posted was running with that firmware.
> Are there some additional fixes in 12.2(10a) or 12.1(x) > beyond the firmware upgrade?
> I have just spent the last couple of days trying pretty > much every possible combination of S-Registers at both > ends, and I will try pretty much anything at this point!
> Thanks again
> Best Regards, > Simon Hailstone
> //>>-----Original Message----- > //>>From: Niels Bakker [mailto:niels=cisco-nsp@bakker.net] > //>>Sent: 12 June 2002 00:55 > //>>To: Aaron Leonard > //>>Cc: Josh Duffek; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net; > //>>cisco-nas@external.cisco.com > //>>Subject: Re: [nsp] Weird PPP problem with NM-8AM in 2610 > //>> > //>> > //>>Hi, > //>> > //>>* Aaron@Cisco.COM (Aaron Leonard) [Wed 12 Jun 2002, 01:11 CEST]: > //>>>>> Wrong. V.34 supports speeds from 2400 bps through 33600 bps. > //>>>> I'm getting confused here. Maybe when falling back to > //>>lower speeds when > //>>>> the other end is also V34 and connecting at 28800 > //>>doesn't work; but I > //>>>> suppose not when talking to a V22bis modem, then it'll > //>>have to speak > //>>>> V22bis to it, right? > //>>> Right. If a V.34 modem is talking to a modem that > //>>supports V.22bis > //>>> (but nothing faster), then they would (ideally) train in V.22bis. > //>>> It is not required that a V.34 modem support V.22bis, but > //>>in practice > //>>> they all do. > //>>> > //>>> In some cases, when you configure a modem that supports both > //>>> V.34 and V.22bis for operation at 2400 bps, it will choose > //>>> V.22bis; other such modems will choose V.34 in that case. > //>> > //>>Right. And from the logfile included by the original > //>>poster it's clear > //>>the the handshake is at V22bis, so I'm not completely crazy > //>>here. :-) > //>> > //>>Thanks for the clarification. In the future I think I > //>>should refrain > //>>from reading mail while trying to reverse engineer some > //>>HTML pages... > //>> > //>>Regards, > //>> > //>> > //>> -- Niels. > //>> > //>>-- > //>>"I've been putting ``Create instantaneous people > //>>transporter'' on people's > //>> task lists forever, but I've yet to see any of them > //>>deliver results! > //>> ...I'm a failure as a project manager." > //>> -- L@koonts.com > //>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:11:59 EDT