Richard Town wrote the following to Craig Ford, and I quote (in part):
-=> Note: Copied from ZYXEL by WIMM 1.31
    RT-> K56flex _is_ the amalgam of K56Plus and V.flex2 architecture.  
    RT-> K56Plus does not interoperate with Livingston Portmasters (Lucent 
    RT-> chipsetted) _only_  To others' kit it does. 
 CF> K56Plus and V.Flex/2 do not interoperate at _any_ level.
 RT> K56Plus will work to Ascend servers (Rockwell based) Just not very 
 RT> well.  Stop spreading FUD
What FUD Richard? K56Plus and V.Flex/2 do not interoperate period.
    CF> The K56Flex protocol as used in the Livinston server is the 
    CF> _first_ implementation of K56Flex, _everything_ else has been a 
    CF> bastardization of K56Plus.
 RT> That does not preclude interop and you carefully refer only to
 RT> Lucent in the above statement.
Lucent is the first vendor to supply server chipsets that actually implement
K56Flex. -Every- other K56???? vendor is in the process of upgrading.
 RT> What K56flex does tho is increase the line bit rate available at 
 RT> greater distances from the client's exchange. K56Plus wasn't very 
 RT> good at that (ver.11* series) As vers.502, 516, 1.01, 1.02 and 
 RT> Zoom's 1.02a have been issued so there's been performance hikes.  
 RT> It's called "continual development" 
Call it what it really is, a scramble to catch up.
   CF> You would do well to look up who the real contributors to those
   CF> recommendations were.
 RT> Interop is all to me.
Why were -all- of the problems with Rockwell-based clients?
 RT> Any 3429 V34 symbol rate available with x2 yet in the clent 
 RT> upstream "x2 connected" direction?
No.
   RT> SG16 is bogged down in intellectual property rights' issues.  No
   RT> such problem for Open Forum members, of which ZyXel is one.
 CF> Mr. Townsend's pattents cover ALL applications, they affect 
 CF> K56Flex, X2, and the ITU's V.PCM.
 RT> Have you read the spec?  If so, how?
How do I know anything?
 RT> There is no ITU v.pcm yet.  Which is why it's referred to in all
 RT> lower case
I am aware of what SG16 is up to.
 RT> Mr Townsend's is only one of 16 competing claims.
Nope, the others are implementations/adaptations.
 RT> Mr Townsend's is only provisional, and unpublished as sealed final 
 RT> spec. All patent agents worth their salt will make their client's
 RT> claims as wide as possible - it's in their client's interest (as
 RT> well as their own :-) So Craig, how do you _know_ Mr Townsend's
 RT> patents "cover ALL applications, cover K56flex, X2, and v.pcm"?
Why _don't_ you?
 RT> Or are you just blowing sycophantic smoke on USR's behalf as you've
 RT> been doing these past five years to my knowledge? 
Not worth responding to.
 RT> Is it true that you're trying to force Symmantic into only Class1
 RT> (1.0) and Class2.0 operational modes only?  If so, why?  And in
 RT> what way is that in their interests?
It is not I.
 RT> Over here there's only one x2 .sdl  And that destroys interop, from
 RT> when it was excellent (SDL.7778) to needing forced V32bis for
 RT> non-VFC V34Plus and K56flex modems; or forced V.FC from older.
What specific problem?
 RT> Other the years, I've spent more time and money than have had sense
 RT> freely collecting reports on these issues.  Some have been the
 RT> fault of Zoom (those sad first V34 factory defaults :)  But not
 RT> anymore.  If I come across a duff connect in my leeching then, a
 RT> quick check in nodelist and yup either H16 and/or X2C (and what a
 RT> waste of space that flag is) is egotistically displayed.  So I just
 RT> shrug and move onto the next. 
 RT> Leaving the USR-fitted system involved with one less user.
 RT> And me with more change in my pocket.  Eventually the penny will
 RT> drop with all those sysops.  Couriers are now starting to turn up
 RT> in the BUY echoes over here, and one of my point's reports sales of
 RT> Zooms are on the up...
I connect with modems from sundried vendors around the world on a continual 
basis, and have tools beyond internal modem diagnostics to evaluate such 
links. If there were significant interop problems, I would see them.
Regards....
Craig
aka: cford@ix.netcom.com
   : craig.ford@2001.conchbbs.com
--- timEd/2 1.10+
---------------