[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0014383]: priexclusive parameter ignored if pri = pri_cpe ?

[Asterisk Bug Tracker]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=14383 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                mbrancaleoni
Assigned To:                rmudgett
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Asterisk
Issue ID:                   14383
Category:                   Channels/chan_dahdi
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   minor
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     closed
Asterisk Version:           1.4.23 
Regression:                 No 
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): N/A 
SVN Revision (number only!):  
Request Review:              
Resolution:                 fixed
Fixed in Version:           
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2009-02-02 04:16 CST
Last Modified:              2009-06-26 20:07 CDT
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    priexclusive parameter ignored if pri = pri_cpe ?
Description: 
Hi,

there's a special reason why the priexclusive param is used only if the
pri is pri_net ?

Looking to this snippet of code (both in chan_zap and chan_dahdi):

**************************
                /* Add support for exclusive override */
                if (p->priexclusive)
                        exclusive = 1;
                else {
                /* otherwise, traditional behavior */
                        if (p->pri->nodetype == PRI_NETWORK)
                                exclusive = 0;
                        else
                                exclusive = 1;
                }
**************************

Seems that the exclusive is always true if the pri is PRI_CPE ?
There's a special reason for that?

Many telcos requires that the channel selection on CPE side must NOT be
exclusive...

I don't know if there's some drawback into setting exclusive = 0 even when
PRI_CPE is selected.
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0107088) svnbot (reporter) - 2009-06-26 20:07
 https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=14383#c107088 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Repository: asterisk
Revision: 203909

_U  trunk/
U   trunk/channels/sig_pri.c

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r203909 | rmudgett | 2009-06-26 20:07:53 -0500 (Fri, 26 Jun 2009) | 23
lines

Merged revisions 203908 via svnmerge from 
https://origsvn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/branches/1.4

........
  r203908 | rmudgett | 2009-06-26 19:55:12 -0500 (Fri, 26 Jun 2009) | 16
lines
  
  The ISDN CPE side should not exclusively pick B channels normally.
  
  Before this patch, Asterisk unconditionally picked B channels
exclusively
  on the CPE side and normally allowed alternative B channels on the
network
  side.  Now Asterisk does the opposite.
  
  Reasons for the CPE side to normally not pick B channels exclusively:
  *  For CPE point-to-multipoint mode (i.e. phone side), the CPE side does
  not have enough information to exclusively pick B channels.  (There may
be
  other devices on the line.)
  *  Q.931 gives preference to the network side picking B channels.
  *  Some telcos require the CPE side to not pick B channels exclusively.
  
  (closes issue https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=14383)
  Reported by: mbrancaleoni
........

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk?view=rev&revision=203909 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2009-06-26 20:07 svnbot         Checkin                                      
2009-06-26 20:07 svnbot         Note Added: 0107088                          
======================================================================