[Asterisk-Users] Re: Unable to get TDM400p working

[Ben Gore]

Hello again..

Disregard my last message. I recompiled Asterisk and all is well.

I guess all the messing around with trying to get Zaptel to compile 
correctly screwed something up with the Asterisk configuration.

Thanks.

-Ben

Original message:

>This has got to be a stupid error I'm making...
>
>I have been experimenting with different hardware and software
>configurations before I decide what to use as a production platform. Up
>until just recently things were going well.
>
>But now it appears I'm unable to get access to my TDM400p from Asterisk. I
>know the TDM card works fine, used it in another machine where it
>performed flawlessly. I have been using the same set of conf files, just
>copying them over from machine to machine. The hardware is Pentium 4
>all-Intel chipset mainboard.
>
>The one difference here is I'm trying CentOS. I've been through the
>problems getting Zaptel to compile with the error in spinlock.h. I got
>to...
>
>Zaptel Configuration
>======================
>
>
>Channel map:
>
>Channel 01: FXO Kewlstart (Default) (Slaves: 01)
>Channel 02: FXS Kewlstart (Default) (Slaves: 02)
>Channel 03: FXS Kewlstart (Default) (Slaves: 03)
>Channel 04: FXS Kewlstart (Default) (Slaves: 04)
>
>4 channels configured.
>
>and thought I was home free. Wrong!
>
>zttool recognizes the card properly and reports status "OK"
>
>Asterisk runs and I can make calls on SIP phones with no problems. However
>I get no dial tone on the analog phone and outgoing calls through the TDM
>(from the SIP phones of course!) produce this on the console:
>
>NOTICE[5934]: app_dial.c:1010 dial_exec_full: Unable to create channel of
>type 'Zap' (cause 66 - Channel not implemented)
>  == Everyone is busy/congested at this time (1:0/0/1)
>    -- Executing Congestion("SIP/100-24d1", "") in new stack
>  == Spawn extension (internal, 91234567, 102) exited non-zero on
>'SIP/100-24d1'
>
>The conf files are the same as they were on another working machine, I
>just copied them over. I'll be going over them /again/ next.
>
>What am I missing?