[asterisk-users] Acceptance testing of a new PRI

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 01:12:42PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:57:49PM +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 01:54:21PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 04:35:33PM +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > > > What's wrong with plain old Zap/NN ?
> > > > 
> > > > [test]
> > > > exten => _6XXX.,1,Dial(Zap/{EXTEN:1:3}/${EXTEN:4})
> > > > 
> > > > Now call 6<chan_num><number-to-dial> in context test.
> > > 
> > > As it happens, Asterisk 1.2 apparently will not recognize 'Zap/01-1' as
> > > the argument to Dial, I get CHANUNAVAIL.
> > 
> > Zap/01-1 ??? How come?
> > 
> > Zap/01 is valid and equivalent to Zap/1 .
> 
> And yet, feeding it to Dial didn't work, and stripping the 0 off did.
> 
> I'm on 1.2 if that makes a diff.

I've used this extensively since 1.0, FWIW.

Looking at the code: the paarsing is done by sscanf. Maybe it does not
consider a number with a leading 0 as a number?

What error/warning do you get when trying to use Zap/01 ?

-- 
               Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755              jabber:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
+972-50-7952406           mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:guest at local.xorcom.com/tzafrir