[asterisk-users] DIALSTATUS vs HANGUPCAUSE
pwakano at gmail.com
Thu Mar 15 17:18:13 CDT 2018
That's really good info Tony!
Thanks very much for the response!
I will consider this to implement a better approach for the failed cases!
On 14 March 2018 at 20:44, Tony Mountifield <tony at softins.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <CAPu3kNV8w+bYQT0W+QbnTSby0V5gfjLqZXq15c4i5enr_-
> tJtg at mail.gmail.com>,
> Patrick Wakano <pwakano at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks Dovid!
> > Indeed looks a bug but regardless of this, this problem made me think
> > the HANGUPCAUSE could be used for this purpose with benefits.
> > I couldn't find an explanation about when DIALSTATUS would actually be
> > better.
> > The HANGUPCAUSE was reworked in version 11 (
> > https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Hangup+Cause) but I didn't
> > someone actually stating it is a better alternative or replacement to the
> > DIALSTATUS or something similar.
> I think you should always check DIALSTATUS, as that will be set regardless
> the way in which a dial fails. I believe HANGUPCAUSE is set to the Q.931
> received from PRI or SIP when a call is rejected or terminated. However,
> could be other mechanisms for failure (such as failure to create a channel
> within Asterisk, or an attempt to send to an unreachable peer), that may
> DIALSTATUS without setting HANGUPCAUSE.
> So HANGUPCAUSE should be considered as extra detail, rather than a
> or alternative to DIALSTATUS.
> Tony Mountifield
> Work: tony at softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
> Play: tony at mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.
> New to Asterisk? Start here:
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the asterisk-users