[asterisk-users] Is it valid to Dial(DAHDI/g0/12345wwwww88888888) on an ISDN trunk?

[Alex Villací­s Lasso]

El 09/01/12 14:40, Richard Mudgett escribió:
>>> I am trying to collect information regarding a bug report for
>>> Elastix (http://bugs.elastix.org/view.php?id=1146). In this bug,
>>> an user has asterisk-1.8.7 and dahdi-2.4.1.2. He is trying to make
>>> an
>>> outbound call through an ISDN trunk, by placing
>>> Dial(DAHDI/g0/12345wwwww88888888) in order to send 12345, then
>>> wait a period, then send 88888888. I am still waiting for a
>>> response on what particular
>>> telephony card he uses, and the kind of ISDN setup (T1/E1/BRI)
>>> being used, but I want to know: Is this dialstring expected to
>>> work with an ISDN trunk? If so, are there any configurations that
>>> might
>>> cause it to stop working? The user claims that this same dialstring
>>> worked with Elastix 1.6 which had dahdi-2.2.0.2 and
>>> asterisk-1.4.26.1.
>>>
>>> Some additional information: the user reports that the dial attempt
>>> fails with hangup cause 28. From
>>> http://helpdesk.netcentral.co.uk/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=293
>>> <http://helpdesk.netcentral.co.uk/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=293>
>>> [^
>>> <http://helpdesk.netcentral.co.uk/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=293>]
>>> :
>>>
>>> Code No. 28 - invalid number format (address incomplete).
>>> This cause indicates that the called party cannot be reached
>>> because the called party number is not in a valid format or is not
>>> complete.
>>>
>>> Is it actually possible that the code is trying to send a string of
>>> 'w's through the ISDN link? Or am I misunderstanding?
>> I'm using 'w' to force sending the 'sending complete' IE in an ISDN
>> setup message.
>> But I don't know the usage of multiple 'w' in the  dialstring.
> See https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-19176
>
> Richard
>
>
If I understand correctly, the support for 'w' in the dial string was removed when refactoring the PRI signaling code. Was this deliberate, or unintentional? I believe it should be added back for consistency with other signaling types.