[Asterisk-Users] Line death not recognized on TDM400P?

[Rich Adamson]

> > > > > A customer of mine has 3 TDM400P cards in a box running
> > > > > asterisk. On each card he has four FXO modules.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have set up the dialplan to dial via group 1 for an outgoing
> > > > > call.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Channels 1-12 are in group 1.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If he plugs a telephone cable into socket 2 or 3 etc, but not 1,
> > > > > when he dials out, it still tries to make the call via socket 1.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Straight away the console says that it has dialed the number via
> > > > > g1 and that it is connecting sip/bla with zap/1-1 (or some
> > > > > such)...
> > > > > 
> > > > > On my X100P I get a red alarm if the phone cable is not plugged
> > > > > in. Is there any way to do this with the TDM400P?
> > > > > 
> > > > > They would like to be able to unplug lines and use them for
> > > > > other purposes at times.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Make sense?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I kinda thought that asterisk would realise that nothing was
> > > > > connected to the TDM card and try the second socket, the third
> > > > > etc...
> > > > 
> > > > It makes sense, but the code to detect unused rj11's is not in *
> > > > now.
> > > > 
> > > > In fact, you'll find that unplugging and replugging the rj11's
> > > > will cause * to fail after a while. (At least that was the case
> > > > about a month ago and there really haven't been any changes to the
> > > > fxo software for some time.)
> > > > 
> > > > There are no alarms or other indicators available that would
> > > > suggest a port has failed or is unavailable.
> > > > 
> > > So basically if there is a problem with line 1 out of 12, no calls
> > > are going to get through...surely this isn't expected behaviour.
> > > 
> > > Is there any way to fix this (I'm the New Zealand distributor of
> > > Digium products and if this is the case, they will be returning to
> > > their propreity pabx)?
> > > 
> > > Should I open a bugnote?
> > > 
> > > I spoke to a few people on IRC last night who confirmed that this is
> > > the case.  It seems crazy.  If I send a fax using a fax machine it
> > > works, if I dial a number with a modem it works (even a $5 modem) so
> > > why can't it work in asterisk?  It used to work on the X100P's...
> > > 
> > > I just want the card not to dial if there is no dialtone...
> > 
> > The only response that seems to have any real logic in it is this...
> > 
> > - The TDM card seems to have the hardware facilities (eg, chipsets) on
> >   it to do substantially more then what it is today
> > - There are very few * developers that truly understand the low level
> >   pstn interface requirements necessary to code additional
> >   functionality into the TDM drivers
> > - Mark is one of the few that can translate pstn interface
> > requirements
> >   into real code, and his time seems to be distributed across a lot of
> >   different areas (not sure when he gets to sleep)
> > - the overall design of the TDM card relies on the host system
> > processor 
> >   to interpret dtmf tones (from digital pcm data flows), etc.
> >   Therefore adding functionality to the drivers is a delicate balance
> >   between the function and burning host cycles that might be
> >   disruptive to other * components
> > - detecting dial tone before dialing would seem to be trevial (I can
> >   easily say that as a non programmer), but someone needs to add the
> >   code to do it reliably
> > - the chip set in use already has provisions to detect CO battery,
> > line
> >   off hook (presumably from a bridged analog phone), battery reversal
> >   (supervision), etc, but someone needs to add the code to use it.
> > 
> > Best guess is time constraints are having "the" biggest impact. The
> > unwritten default condition for * development is that if a feature or
> > bug fix is expected/required, there is a high probability it won't be
> > addressed unless a bug report is generated, or, one of the developers
> > has the same problem; sort of the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
> > 
> > It's my belief (right, wrong or indifferent) that digium is missing
> > out on a major revenue stream due to a lack of understanding
> > "marketing" and the prioritization of certain development functions
> > (like the above) required to sustain/grow sales. If digium is going to
> > rely on the sales of these cards to grow/support *, then something is
> > going to have to change since user experience/opinion for those
> > products is heading in a downward direction (not upward).
> > 
> > I'm certainly not ragging on anyone, just stating an opinion FWIW.
> > 
> > Rich
> 
> How's this for service!!!!
> 
> 
> ===============================================
> 09-02-04 14:00  ZX81  New Bug   
> 09-02-04 15:04  markster  Bugnote Added: 0013839   
> 09-02-04 15:04  markster  Assigned To   => markster  
> 09-02-04 15:04  markster  Resolution  open => fixed  
> 09-02-04 15:04  markster  Status  new => resolved  
> ===============================================
> 
> And:
> 
> ===============================================
> Update of /usr/cvsroot/asterisk/channels
> In directory mongoose.digium.com:/tmp/cvs-serv14053/channels
> 
> Modified Files:
>  chan_zap.c 
> Log Message:
> Don't use FXO's with no battery (bug #2359)
> ===============================================
> 
> Amazing!  That's great!  My customer will be really happy!
> 
> Mark thanks for this.

That sounds excellent! But, the comments within the code imply the change
is for T1 interfaces only (maybe not the TDM card?). 

Just sent a note off to Mark asking for clearification as to which
interfaces it actually applies to.

Rich