[Asterisk-Users] Newer CVS-Stable Asterisk not recognizing G711 ULaw from certain providers

[Paul Rodan]

Ok,

 

I'm quite fond of CVS-Stable 10-26-04 as it's always been fine. One thing I
noticed with this version and all versions prior, when I did a "sip show
channels" it always displayed info in all caps. But sometime between
10-26-04 and 12-8-04 they changed this to all lower case. I believe this MAY
be related to the latest problem I just fixed.

 

My provider was sending me incoming calls via an unauthenticated SIP stream,
I'd have it match up somewhere in my [incoming] context and it'd be fine.
However, they sent it to me in G711 ULaw and Asterisk kept complaining it
wasn't able to find a compatible codec. My sip.conf clearly had:

 

disallow=all

allow=ulaw

 

but it did not work. I could place outbound calls to that provider using
ulaw, that was fine. The way I fixed it was by DOWNGRADING from 12-8-04 back
to 10-26-04 and now the calls come through fine, same exact configuration. I
think maybe the provider is sending the codec as something like "ULAW" and
Asterisk would always catch this and use the proper codec. But the 12-8-04
version was looking for "ulaw" so when the provider sent "ULAW" it didn't
recognize it and gave me the error. This is a guess, but I know that without
a doubt, downgrading fixed the issue. I noticed when I upgraded to 1-6-05 on
another server (about a week old) that when I did "sip show channels" that
it still displayed things in lower case. So I wonder if this issue would
still be present? My upstream provider doesn't use Asterisk, they use SER
and other Hardware-based SIP Telco equipment, do you think the bug is with
SER or the Telco equipment? I know that they have a TON of other clients and
they all use ULaw without problems. 

 

I'm going to have my provider give me a new phone number and direct it to my
other Asterisk server running 1-6-05 and see if it takes it. If it doesn't,
I think I can at least submit a bug report. Has anybody else seen/heard of
anything like this? Was this already fixed and I'm just dumb?

 

Regards,

Paul

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20050114/dd5e4276/attachment.htm