| Summary: | ASTERISK-02422: Answer() can interfere with E&M Wink signalling on cT1 | ||
| Reporter: | kb1_kanobe2 (kb1_kanobe2) | Labels: | |
| Date Opened: | 2004-09-16 06:38:16 | Date Closed: | 2011-06-07 14:04:39 |
| Priority: | Major | Regression? | No |
| Status: | Closed/Complete | Components: | Core/General |
| Versions: | Frequency of Occurrence | ||
| Related Issues: | |||
| Environment: | Attachments: | ||
| Description: | I have a Norstar MICS v4.1 connected to an Asterisk 'CVS-HEAD-09/12/04' by channelised T1. The configuration for the channel group was specified in zapata.conf as, amonst other items: context=in-t1nstar-woodbay immediate=yes signalling=em_w and the context was defined as: [in-t1nstar-woodbay] exten => s,1,Answer() exten => s,2,NoOp(${TIMESTAMP} test-in-t1nstar) exten => s,3,DigitTimeout,10 exten => s,4,ResponseTimeout,10 The presence of the 'Answer()' caused the Norstar to report all the lines in the group as 'in use' based on the E&M wink state. Presumably the post-wink digit outpulse period was reduced to almost zero, causing the apparent transition straight to off-hook. ****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ****** I don't know that there is really anything to fix here, hence the low priority/feature status. Perhaps a WARNING when immediate=yes and a state signalling protocol is being used would be sufficient? | ||
| Comments: | By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2004-09-16 08:54:23 You can just put a Wait if you need it, but this is not something general to E&M that has to be there, it's just a configuration option with your switch. Again this is not a bug within Asterisk as best I can tell. Try s,1,Wait(0.5) or somethiing, and you should probably start talking to us on IRC before placing all these bugs | ||