[Asterisk-Users] SER or not to SER?

[Asterisk .]

Hi,

--- Iqbal <iqbal at gigo.co.uk> wrote:
> asterisk would only be called if pstn did not answer or was busy, then
> somehow ser should no call failed, and forward it to asterisk, its the
> ser knowing the failure that I cant get figured out, the forwarding and
> all, seems to be okay.

I dont think you need to register asterisk with ser. Ser maintains the state of calls which are
relayed. You can check the status of calls and if the call was returned with busy, or unavailable
status, forward them to Asterisk. 

<snip> 

> Now if route [1] fails does ser go back to the top a process again and
> check if its for pstn...I guess not else it would make the call again :-)
> and I figure it dont goto route [2], since those only seem to be called
> from the main routing logic, hence is the section "other parameters"

If route[1] fails, it will not go back to the main route. Also, having 2 routes in the script
does'nt mean that ser will call the second route, if the first route fails. It will either break,
or goto the next failure route. But you need to specifically tell ser to do that. In your case,
forward to Asterisk.

> iqbal
> 

Regards, Girish 



		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com