[asterisk-users] Acceptance testing of a new PRI

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 03:46:28PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:38:07PM +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> [ quoting me ]
> 
> > > Chanunavail/Congestion.
> > > 
> > > Here, let me go get the exact message...
> > > 
> > > ==============8<========================8<============================
> > >     -- Executing AGI("SIP/101cathy-b7619990", "call_log.agi|880116142154432")
> > > in new stack
> > >     -- Launched AGI Script /var/lib/asterisk/agi-bin/call_log.agi
> > > +++++ CALL LOG START : |1216995262.36|SIP/101cathy-b7619990|880116142154432|SIP|
> > > 7274514974|2008-07-25 10:14:22
> > >     -- AGI Script call_log.agi completed, returning 0
> > >     -- Executing Dial("SIP/101cathy-b7619990", "Zap/01-1/16142154432|30|o") in
> > >  new stack
> > 
> > Why do you keep adding that -1?
> 
> Because, as I noted in my other message, *ASTERISK KEEPS ADDING IT*. 
> 
> :-)
> 
> > Try Zap/01
> > 
> > Though I tried originating a call to Zap/04 and Zap/04-1 and both worked
> > well here (1.4). With the "-1" I got the warning I mentioned above about
> > the unknown option.
> 
> Sure.  But did *the call go out*?
> 
> > > Jul 25 10:14:22 NOTICE[25497]: app_dial.c:1076 dial_exec_full: Unable to create
> > > channel of type 'Zap' (cause 0 - Unknown)
> > >   == Everyone is busy/congested at this time (1:0/0/1)
> > >     -- Executing NoOp("SIP/101cathy-b7619990", "CHANUNAVAIL") in new stack
> > >     -- Executing NoOp("SIP/101cathy-b7619990", "Hangup Cause: 0") in new stack
> > >     -- Executing Hangup("SIP/101cathy-b7619990", "") in new stack
> > >   == Spawn extension (default, 880116142154432, 5) exited non-zero on 'SIP/101
> > > cathy-b7619990'
> > > ==============8<========================8<============================
> > > 
> > > Copied and pasted.  I later extended the rules, as you saw, to have a
> > > special rule for 880X, and it worked just fine.
> > > 
> > > Not sure what to tell you, but it seems to be that.
> > > 
> > > Note that I have not *yet* taken the "-1" off the end, so it cannot be
> > > that.
> 
> See?  I *knew* I mentioned it.
> 
> Note that Mike Cargile at VICIdial looked over that dialplan, and he
> didn't seem to have a problem with the -1; I'm pretty sure it's in the
> VICIdial standard dialplans.

You can replace the '-1' with 'X56456456', '_123123' or 'p0'. It would
be likewise (in)valid, give a warning regarding "invalid option" but
dial anyway.

-- 
               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