[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0014684]: Hangup cause 20 (subscriber absent), clearly an end user condition, is being used for unregistered trunks

[Asterisk Bug Tracker]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=14684 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                davidw
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Asterisk
Issue ID:                   14684
Category:                   Channels/chan_sip/Interoperability
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   minor
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     new
Asterisk Version:           1.6.0.1 
Regression:                 No 
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): N/A 
SVN Revision (number only!):  
Request Review:              
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2009-03-17 07:50 CDT
Last Modified:              2009-03-17 09:18 CDT
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    Hangup cause 20 (subscriber absent), clearly an end
user condition, is being used for unregistered trunks
Description: 
In a similar context to http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=14683, calls to
trunks which are unavailable due
to a qualify failure are being given hangup cause 20 (subscriber absent). 
This is clearly intended to cover mobile subscribers currently off the
network, and unregistered SIP phones, which are not conditions that will
succumb to immediate retries over a different route.

3 (no route to destination) or 38 (network out of order) would seem more
appropriate for a trunk, although I think that would also require some
mechanism to distinguish trunks from leaf connnections.
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0101869) davidw (reporter) - 2009-03-17 09:18
 http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=14684#c101869 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
I wondered if it could be considered a feature request, but felt that the
feature is compliance with the Q.805 cause codes, and that that feature
already exists, but it is generating incorrect codes.

SIPPEER would have to be used after Dial, as I doubt our marketing people
would be happy with a race condition where SIPPEER shows OK but the dial
fails without a failover being attempted. 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2009-03-17 09:18 davidw         Note Added: 0101869                          
======================================================================