[asterisk-users] Strange ISDN-problem with incoming calls out of the same city

[Armin Schindler]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Stefan Guenther wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Armin wrote:
> >That looks corrct so far, numbers with just 94033 should not be
> >accepted, because of no match.
> >
> I then added a context to match those, too.
> Otherwise I would loose these calls.
>
> >What type of ISDN line do you have?
> >
> 4 BRI (Anlagenanschluß) connected to an EICON 4 BRI8M

Okay, but then the setting in capi.conf
   isdnmode=MSN
is wrong. For 'Anlagenanschluss' you need
   isdnmode=did

> >And how is chan-capi (capi.conf) configured?
> >
> [General]
> nationalprefix=0
> internationalprefix=00
> rxgain=0.8
> txgain=0.8
> language=deA

These options are no general options, these are for the port sections only:
> immediate=yes
> ;immediate=yes
> faxdetect=off
>
> [ISDN1]
> incomingmsn=*
> context=from-extern
> isdnmode=MSN
> controller=1
> group=1
> callgroup=1
> accountcode=ISDN1

> echocancel=yes
> echosquelch=1

Both of these do not make sense. Either your hardware does not provide
echo-cancel and you use echosquelch (which is something I cannot recommend)
or you have a DIVA with hardware echo-cancel and you set echocancel=yes.

> echotail=64
> devices=2
>
> [cut]
> ISDN3-5 like ISDN1
> ISDN2 is in NT mode.
>
> >BTW, why do you Answer() all calls directly?
> >
> Hm, I was used to put an ANSWER() in front of every PLAYBACK(),
> BACKGROUND(), VOICEMAILMAIN() and so on. And after I while I asked
> myself whether it wouldn't be a good idea to put ANSWER() in front of
> DIAL(), too, just to be sure that asterisk has control of the call. No
> good idea? Could it cause an trouble? The wiki doesn't mention any
> disadvantages.

If you want to play something to the caller (without having reversed 
early-B3 possibility), you need to ANSWER(). But if the caller just should
hear the ringing tone, let Dial() handle this.
E.g., if the extension is busy, the caller must pay for the connection 
because of the ANSWER().

Armin