ivillegas, many thanks for taking the time to reply. Whilst it does not fully answer my question it is nevertheless a very useful link.

I have tried a straight thru 2 wire RJ11 and the unit does not perform as expected.

What I have found related your question, you can up the port zero as two line phone, but port 1 will be shut.

This link will help you, hopefully you have already gone through this:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk653/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094fac.shtml

bilashece, Thanks have looked at that, I am in the process of making up cables etc to try and see if those I have have issues. To-date only a 4wire cable seems to work with port0, I cannot get port 1 up on either of my 2 port VIC-2FXS interface modules. One on a 2600 and the otehr on a 1751V

Please keep posted if you get success :)

t00832112 - I am still back at the physical tests, because my original configs did not work (sorry I erased it all and restarted from the cabling).

===========

Cable Tests

===========

OK I made a few cables up and tested some scenarios on a 1750V:

2 Wire Straight-Thru cable using pins 3-3 and 4-4 into port 2/0. A BT Converse 220 phone does *NOT* generate the tone when this configuration is used. A cable tester shows I do have voltage on pin 3, but the loop is not made when the handset is lifted. Show voice port summary indicates both ports remain on-hook with handset lifted.

2 Wire Straight-Thru cable using only pins 2-2 and 5-5 into port 2/0. A BT Converse 220 phone *DOES* generate the tone when this configuration is used. A cable tester shows I do have voltage on pin 2, and the loop is made when the handset is lifted. Show voice port summary indicates port 2/1 (note - not 2/0) is now off-hook when the handset is lifted.

4 Wire Straight-Thru cable using pins 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 5-5 into port 2/0. A BT Converse 220 phone *DOES* generate the tone when this configuration is used. A cable tester shows voltage from the FXS port is up on pin 2 and 3. Show voice port summary indicates *both* ports 2/0 and 2/1 are now off-hook when the handset is lifted.

4 Wire Straight-Thru cable using pins 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 5-5 into port 2/1. A BT Converse 220 phone does *NOT* generate the tone when this configuration is used. A cable tester shows voltage from the FXS port is up on pin 3 only. Show voice port summary indicates both ports remain on-hook with handset lifted.

=========

Cisco Say

=========

Cisco take from tac case: http://www.ciscotaccc.com/voice/showcase?case=K12933148

Port 0 on a VIC-2FXS is designed to accommodate a U.S.-style two-line phone, instead of the more common European-style one-line phone. In addition to pins three and four being used, pins two and five are also monitored by the voice port. If you get a phone handset of unknown origin, it is possible that pins two and five are wired to allow last number recall or call forwarding. If this is the case, port 0 on the VIC assumes you have a two-line phone, and it shuts down port 1 automatically.

Resolution: To remedy this situation, be sure only two wires are used on your RJ11 cable from the gateway to the phone. Verify that the cores in the RJ11 add up to two, and that they are the middle two wires. If you have a four-pin RJ11, then it would be pins two and three. If you have a six-pin RJ11, it would be pins three and four.

The following schematic shows port B with the following pin-out:

Pin 1 NC

Pin 2 port A tip

Pin 3 port B ring

Pin 4 port B tip

Pin 5 port A ring

Pin 6 NC

==============

Current STatus

==============

This 'remedy' simply does not work for me. I am not able to get a tone from both ports under any wiring scenario that I choose, in fact I am not able to get a tone from port x/1 under any circumstances.

Another thing, this is the same on my second FXS card which is on a Cisco 2600 and which displays *exactly* the same issues (albeit the port / module nomenclature is different).

=========

Questions

=========

Should I get a tone from port x/1 with just the physical cabling in place as I do from port x/0?

Is there something odd about phones in the UK with respect to FXS?

Is it actually worth my time pursuing this given that I am trying to build a CCVP Lab, or just get on with the course stuff? [Why am I asking you?] :-)

Sat and examined my notes and my conclusion is that the Cisco view is correct technically, and if the phone *did* work if pin 3 on port x/0 made the circuit (and produce a tone) when the handset was lifted, then the pin on port x/1 would be OK because pin 3 on that port remains active.

I am still very puzzled as to why the handset does not make the circuit (or at least tone), and why port x/1 never produces a tone regardless of the status of port x/0.

If anyone can shed any light on this I would be very grateful.

You are the only king of this R&D I think. :)

Well guys it has taken my 4 hours tonight but I believe I have an answer. Some tests I did with the BT Converse 220 phone (lets call this a UK phone) and a SMART Ohmmeter / Voltmeter suggested that the UK phone was using pins 2 & 5 on the RJ11 to perform the task I was expecting on pins 3 & 4 (centre).

I decided to do some research and found these sites:

http://www.gbnet.net/net/uk-telecom/p3-1.html

http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/wiring_info.htm

In a nutshell this confirmed my thoughts, that the speech/ring combination on the UK phone was pins 2 and 5.

Now we already know that the Router FXS is expecting the signal on pins 3 & 4 so the thing to do is make an RJ11 that meets that need, hence:

FXS Wiring:

===========

Router Pin 3 <----> UK Phone Pin 2

Router Pin 4 <----> UK Phone Pin 5

++

OR

++

Router Pin 3 <----> UK Phone Pin 5

Router Pin 4 <----> UK Phone Pin 2

*****The Polarity makes no difference, though one of these will be the correct way*****

========

Testing

========

Obviously the end with the 3 & 4 connectors has to go to the Router FXS Port, the other end 2 & 5 to the UK Phone.

Tests worked for FXS Ports 0 & 1 on both of my Routers.

It's been a hell of a ride, a pain even, but well worth it. Hope it helps someone else in the same predicament. Cheers for listening and your input.

hi StephenLeach, what's the result ultimate?

Did you able to use the port 1?

YES!

Can use either port in isolation, or both ports at the same time, get a dial tone from both all of the time with this cable configuration.

Would suggest that whichever way you choose to do the cable pinout config, you pick the same for all ports and not mix and match!

Cheers

Steve

Using the POTS dial peer the actual dialing works fine, however on some UK Phones you do not get ringing (on others you do) but if you pick up the handset then the call is actually established fine.

There seems to be a further difference in some UK phones (as opposed to the USA type) in that they also need a ring signal on pin 3 as a 'bell'.

I am not sure how to provide this in the configuration from an FXS, and to be honest since I have two phones that work (and ring), I don't see a need to pursue it as a further fix. It is something to be aware of, and if anyone else has input, please add it here.

Regards,

Steve.

Hi Stephen (et al),

I hope that you might be able to assist me with some similar issues I am experiencing with a 1760 + VIC-2FXS (made in Mexico).

Just like yourself, I am attempting to hook up analogue UK phones (BT Converse 1100) to ports 3/0 and 3/0 (the WIC-2FXS).

I have followed your advice in previous posts and have not managed to make a great deal of progress. At present I have a cable mapped as follows:

Router FXS Pin 3 to Phone Pin 2.

Router FXS Pin 4 to Phone Pin 5.

I have also reversed the above mapping to take into account polarity. Both versions result in the handset constantly ringing and a dial tone which sounds like a 'laser gun' - it feels to me as if the voltage/frequency is not correct for the UK phones. The result is the same for both port 0 and 1 on the 2FXS card.

The reason for locating your posts in the first instance was because I felt that my RJ11 cables were probably not wired correctly for UK use; hence I spliced up my own cables as per your instructions. I have found the same result no matter what cable type I use (i.e. 4 pin straight, 2 pin straight, etc.)

Please can someone advise me as to where I may be going wrong? I am more than happy to provide further information.

Many thanks for your time,

Tom Ranson