[c-nsp] Line Code Violations

[John Neiberger]

On 7/6/06, Matthew Crocker <matthew at crocker.com> wrote:
> >
> > Our data equipment is set to use c-bit framing and can only support
> > b3zs. I found out yesterday that TWT has their section of the circuit
> > set to m13 instead of c-bit. I'm assuming that that would be a problem
> > so I'm trying to get them to change it. Shouldn't the line be
> > provisioned for c-bit end-to-end?
>
> If you are doing DS-3 'clear channel'  (i.e. 45mbps) then you want it
> set for cbit.  If you are doing DS-3 'channelized' (i.e. 28 x DS-1
> circuits) then you want to use M13 (em-one-three, not em-thirteen)
> framing.  And yes, the framing should be the same for the entire
> circuit.
>
> -Matt

Thanks for the confirmation and the correction on the pronunciation.
:-)  I've always called it em-thirteen and I've never heard anyone
pronounce it differently. Then again, I rarely talk DS3 to people. Our
network is mostly T1s, so DS3 rarely comes up at this level of detail.
I should know it better than this, though.

I'm surprised this circuit has ever worked. When we first installed
it, our CPE was set to M13, as was the Time Warner Telecom leg, but
the two Qwest legs were set to c-bit. It was never really stable back
then and I've never been pleased with it. It has always been a worry
of mine.

I think we have multiple problems, though, because this particular
problem got dramatically worse on Monday. I suspect that once we fix
the framing mismatch, we'll probably have other things to take care
of. One thing at a time, though.

Thanks!
John