Summary:ASTERISK-03090: [patch] preliminary TR08 protocol support
Reporter:Andrew Kohlsmith (akohlsmith)Labels:
Date Opened:2004-12-26 03:10:06.000-0600Date Closed:2011-06-07 14:04:44
Versions:Frequency of
Environment:Attachments:( 0) chan_zap-tr08.patch
( 1) chan_zap-tr08.patch2.txt
( 2) zaptel-tr08.patch
( 3) zaptel-tr08.patch2.txt
Description:This adds ZT_SIG_TR08 signaling to zaptel.



I had to hack a little -- I use the TXSIG_KEWL to do the "ring off" timeslot since TR08 does not use OFFHOOK state for ring off and instead of increasing the array I just made use of the kewlstart timeslot.

Comments are certainly appreciated!  In particular as I have had to use another bit in the signaling bitmap (2 << 19) -- I don't think I've crowded into anything comign from the MSB down but more eyes on this would be useful.

Syslod gets mad props here for saving me from going through all 16 possibilities on the RBS by hooking up his TBERD.
Comments:By: Andrew Kohlsmith (akohlsmith) 2004-12-26 03:13:24.000-0600

bug ASTERISK-3123154 is the chan_zap patch.

edited on: 01-07-05 00:13

By: Andrew Kohlsmith (akohlsmith) 2004-12-26 03:13:25.000-0600

disclaimer is on file.

edited on: 12-26-04 03:13

By: Brian West (bkw918) 2004-12-26 10:25:32.000-0600

can you combine the bugs into one note..... so they don't get lost?

By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2004-12-26 15:01:47.000-0600

Should this not be tr08fxo and tr08fxs?  Are we not implementing the other side or is this a bidirectional protocol, and if it is a bidirectional protocol, why isn't it an E&M variation?

By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2004-12-26 23:53:08.000-0600

I have added the patch from bug ASTERISK-3123154 to this to keep everything together.

edited on: 01-07-05 00:14

By: Andrew Kohlsmith (akohlsmith) 2004-12-27 22:44:56.000-0600

I've never seen FXO ports on a TR08 extension, which is why I called it just 'tr08' -- these things are typically used to bring phone lines out to remote pads.

By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2004-12-28 18:44:09.000-0600

Well, in other words...  If this is the FXS side, then there *must* be an FXO side right?  If we're going to do one side, we should do both!

By: Andrew Kohlsmith (akohlsmith) 2004-12-28 20:36:36.000-0600

I can't provide FXO-side signaling support, I've never seen it -- I've only ever seen these things provide POTS service at a remote pad -- never anything else.  So sure, it's an FXS interface and that implies that there'd be an FXO side to compliment it but I have never heard of it.

By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2005-01-06 22:52:04.000-0600

We discussed making this tr08fxs, is this going to happen?

By: Andrew Kohlsmith (akohlsmith) 2005-01-07 06:58:25.000-0600

Yup, likely today.  :-)

By: Andrew Kohlsmith (akohlsmith) 2005-01-08 18:58:57.000-0600

uploaded chan_zap-tr08.patch and zaptel-tr08.patch which I think satisfy Mark's requirements for inclusion into CVS HEAD now.  :-)

By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2005-01-08 19:07:21.000-0600

Well should the signallings not also be ZT_SIG_FXOTR08 and ZT_SIG_FXSTR08 ?

By: Andrew Kohlsmith (akohlsmith) 2005-01-08 19:21:00.000-0600

If I actually had FXO and FXS variants of TR08 in the source, yes -- Since I have no documentation at all on FXS signaling of TR08 I didn't want to "pollute" the source with the placeholder code, opting instead to error out on ztcfg and chan_zap load.

I'll revert that and add the (empty) signaling state.

By: Andrew Kohlsmith (akohlsmith) 2005-01-08 21:22:10.000-0600

updated the two patches so that FXOTR08 and FXSTR08 signaling is able to be configured, although I have no idea what will actually happen with TR08 FXS signaling.  :-)

By: twisted (twisted) 2005-01-28 19:53:35.000-0600

akholsmith, can you please let me know which files (if any) can be removed to clean this up a bit?

By: Clod Patry (junky) 2005-02-12 01:28:00.000-0600


akohlsmith: which files can we delete to make a little cleanup here?
All except the 2 last ones?

And since that bug is a feature, can we apply the patch now and see how it works ? Is it working on your side?

By: Andrew Kohlsmith (akohlsmith) 2005-02-12 07:24:10.000-0600

yes just hte last two files are important and it's working here, although I have to test against -HEAD and make sure the patches still apply cleanly.  I'll do that tonight.

By: Andrew Kohlsmith (akohlsmith) 2005-02-16 20:46:53.000-0600

I've attached the 2 patches that apply cleanly to -HEAD, and I will test it tomorrow when I get to work. I'll post a yay/nay here and hopefully it'll get included in -HEAD.

By: Clod Patry (junky) 2005-02-27 22:23:43.000-0600

akohlsmith: you had time to test it? Both still applies to current HEAD?
can we delete the 2 patches dated as "01-08-05" ?


By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2005-03-17 08:11:29.000-0600

markster: Where are we with this patch? Seems like it is ready to roll into CVS or do you have any more comments or suggestions?

By: Michael Jerris (mikej) 2005-05-02 07:49:11

akohlsmith: *poke*

By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2005-05-18 19:47:19

Closed pending placer's desire to update later.