[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0012509]: [patch] MFC/R2 support for chan_zap

[noreply at bugs.digium.com]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=12509 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                moy
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Asterisk
Issue ID:                   12509
Category:                   Channels/chan_zap/NewFeature
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   feature
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     new
Asterisk Version:           SVN 
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases):  trunk 
SVN Revision (number only!): 114097 
Disclaimer on File?:        N/A 
Request Review:              
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             04-24-2008 01:31 CDT
Last Modified:              06-27-2008 08:41 CDT
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    [patch] MFC/R2 support for chan_zap
Description: 
Here we go. This is my first try to give R2 support to chan_zap. I'm sure I
am missing locks and/or features here and there but I have tested it
internally with success with a considerable amount of concurrent channels
(64). That's the best I can do with the hardware I currently have (more
coming!).


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

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 moy - 06-27-08 08:41  
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
asbestoshead: I'd like first to know why the MF timeout is happening. What
do you have in mfcr2_mfback_timeout parameter in zapata.conf? You may want
to try something like 2000 and see if the MF timeout error goes away, it
seems your telco may be quite slow.

Now, regarding the behavior on protocol timeout, I can certainly go to
BLOCK and then do IDLE, but before doing that I'd like you to ask them
exactly how much time do they expect us to stay in blocked before going to
idle.

Putting a line to blocked manually sounds something reasonable and
something I think may be useful sometimes, so I will add that. 

Issue History 
Date Modified   Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
06-27-08 08:41  moy            Note Added: 0089352                          
======================================================================