Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

  • Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Falc 1 Slip

Status
Not open for further replies.

alexdykes

IS-IT--Management
Oct 29, 2009
146
US
I just replaced an old 406 with a new IP500, all seems to be working well, except that I am getting an odd message in the monitor, here's a printout:
1758562mS PRN: FalcLockedChecks FPGA_FIFO_CTRL: 1; FIFO_CTRL: 1
1758562mS PRN: Falc 1 slip
1758562mS PRN: WARNING:
1758562mS PRN: ****Reset Slip Store Falc 1 0 0
1758562mS PRN:
1758562mS PRN: WARNING:
1758563mS PRN: 20:34:28
1758563mS PRN:
1761844mS PRN: FalcLockedChecks FPGA_FIFO_CTRL: 1; FIFO_CTRL: 1
1761844mS PRN: Falc 1 slip
1761844mS PRN: WARNING:
1761844mS PRN: ****Reset Slip Store Falc 1 0 0
1761844mS PRN:
1761844mS PRN: WARNING:
1761844mS PRN: 20:34:31
1761844mS PRN:
1765632mS PRN: FalcLockedChecks FPGA_FIFO_CTRL: 1; FIFO_CTRL: 1
1765632mS PRN: Falc 1 slip
1765632mS PRN: WARNING:
1765632mS PRN: ****Reset Slip Store Falc 1 0 0
1765633mS PRN:
1765633mS PRN: WARNING:
1765633mS PRN: 20:34:35

Anyone know what could be causing this?
 
I should add to this:

I have two Ts with PRI signalling. I have tried every combination of
fallback/network
network/fallback
network/unsuitable
unsuitable/network
network/network

As far as the signalling goes, the slip is occuring on the T that is not set to the primary signal
 
It looks like a sync problem
What is the setting on the 406 ?



ACS - Implement IP Office
ACA - Implement IP Telephony -- ACA - Design IP Telephony
ACA - Voice Services Management
______________
Women and cats can do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea!
 
The 406 was set to network for one T and fallback on the other. I copied the settings over and verified them twice. I can't say it's the hardware really either since I re-used the PRI cards in legacy card carriers. I know that framing slips had been a problem here in the past as reported by the carrier, but the 406 running 3.1 wasn't terribly good at diagnosing the problem. I'm thinking I need to call the carrier out since it would appear to me that its not our problem per se.
 
Can you confirm that your pri cards are NOT Alchemy cards ?




ACS - Implement IP Office
ACA - Implement IP Telephony -- ACA - Design IP Telephony
ACA - Voice Services Management
______________
Women and cats can do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea!
 
Is line 1 set to network or fallback?

One thing you could try is to swap circuits to see if the slips follow. If they do then you have a strong case for telco problems.
 
Peter,

I can confirm that they are not alchemy cards.

CarGoSki,

I have swapped the PRIs, no change. I have tried line 1 as network, fallback and unsuitable and all possible combinations of those settings between lines 1 and 5. T1 signalling is where my knowledge really drops off a clif, I'm ok with analogue PSTN stuff and the IP Office in general, but with it comes to Ts I cry voodoo and seek help (or just blame the carrier, that usually works).

Funny thing of course is that calls don't seem to be affected.
 
So if I understand correctly you removed the patch cords in line 1 and line 5 and swapped them or you swapped the cards? The problem follows the circuit or the T-1 card? A little bit clearer on what you swapped and where the problem occurs.

Sysmon shows that the circuit/card in line 1 is slipping. You swapped something. Is it still slipping in line 1 or has it started slipping in line 5?
 
The slip occurs on whichever line is set to network in Manager. I have swapped the cables and the cards both (not at the same time of course). Right now line 5 is slipping, if I set line 1 to Network and line 5 to fallback or unsuitable then line 1 starts slipping. It only ever complains about one at a time.
 
So it could be the cable or everything on the provider side too




ACS - Implement IP Office
ACA - Implement IP Telephony -- ACA - Design IP Telephony
ACA - Voice Services Management
______________
Women and cats can do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea!
 
Good point on the cableing, the line is extended quite far from the MPOE (~900ft) I'll replace the pairs and see what happens.
 
Put it as close as you can get !!!
This will give problems as you can see :)




ACS - Implement IP Office
ACA - Implement IP Telephony -- ACA - Design IP Telephony
ACA - Voice Services Management
______________
Women and cats can do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea!
 
I think on an E1 it is only recommended to be extended by 20m max, so 900ft (274m) may well cause issues with a T1 :)

ACS - IP Office Implement

"What the Crocodile Hat....was that?
 
Its not physically possible to get it any closer wihtout re-wiring two buildings. The Telco didnt have a problem with it and our other T circuits (all data) dont have an issue.
 
For an E1 card Avaya Say 3M max!
you will need to relocate either the IPO or the NTE
 
"The Telco didnt have a problem with it".... they wouldn't they have been paid and as you ok'd where they put it, any problems are yours not theirs :)

ACS - IP Office Implement

"What the Crocodile Hat....was that?
 
Also data isn't as delay/synch sensitive as voice traffic and so the data devices probably will not complain :)

ACS - IP Office Implement

"What the Crocodile Hat....was that?
 
amriddle01,

Apparently I can't type this morning, that was supposed to be ~90 feet, one too many zeros there. Despite that, I know it's too far and I know it's our problem, no doubts about that. It is what it is and its not possible for us to fix it, the LEC wont relocate the NIU and we can't move the IPO any closer.

In reality ~90ft (could be as high as 150ft max) is not very far if the cabling is properly shielded and there are no sources of interference. The lines are each run over their own CAT6 connection and there have never been any call quality issues in the past. These circuits have been up since 2004. We have had framing issues in the past and they have always been between the NIU and the CO, seems we're in a trouble prone location.
 
It's not interference that is the issue with longer runs it's the reflectance and capacitance on the cable making the difference between the 1 and 0's (peaks and troughs) less obvoius, for data they are designed to pick up the difference better allowing longer runs, NTE's/PRI cards are not designed to cover the same kinds of distances, although in the past Avaya will have used higer spec kit and so you didn't suffer the consequences as much, now they are getting cheap with the Kit it is not quite as resiliant....at least that's my theory, it could be utter rubbish of course :)

ACS - IP Office Implement

"What the Crocodile Hat....was that?
 
I can't say its the cards, because I re-used the cards from the 406 in the 500, however the older software revs werent always as reliable in the problem reporting dept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top