Summary: | ASTERISK-04580: Problem interpreting FACILITY during setup from HiPath 4k | ||
Reporter: | Markus Barckmann (worta) | Labels: | |
Date Opened: | 2005-07-13 10:43:23 | Date Closed: | 2011-06-07 14:03:16 |
Priority: | Major | Regression? | No |
Status: | Closed/Complete | Components: | Core/General |
Versions: | Frequency of Occurrence | ||
Related Issues: | |||
Environment: | Attachments: | ||
Description: | When using Asterisk connected to an Siemens HiPath 4k (pri_net; E1; QSIG) the FAC message carrying die Calling Party Name is discarded. Debug: "Don't know what to do if second ROSE component is of type 0x6" ****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ****** "Offending" Message example: 1c 2f 91 aa 06 80 01 00 82 01 00 8b 01 00 a1 21 02 02 a2 70 06 04 2b 0c 09 00 a1 15 04 10 42 41 52 43 4b 4d 41 4e 4e 20 4d 41 52 4b 55 53 02 01 01 | ||
Comments: | By: Matthew Fredrickson (mattf) 2005-07-13 10:49:57 Do not report bugs agains CVS-HEAD without updating to latest CVS-HEAD. ESPECIALLY in regards to facility messages. What happens when you use latest head? By: Markus Barckmann (worta) 2005-07-13 11:17:23 Sorry, already using latest CVS-HEAD. I was just to stupid realizing the current date. :) By: Matthew Fredrickson (mattf) 2005-07-13 15:16:06 Whatever message that the switch is sending, it's not one that libpri supports. I can't even eyeball this thing. I see where the name is probably encoded, but the rest of the message doesn't make a lot of sense. No operation ID, which should come after the invoke ID is specified in a way that I understand. By: Markus Barckmann (worta) 2005-07-14 04:39:34 I've added a dirty hack to pri_facility.c stating: #define HP_CNID_CALLINGNAME 722209024 case HP_CNID_CALLINGNAME: pri_message(pri, " Handle Name display operation\n"); memcpy(call->callername, comp->data+2, comp->len-5); call->callername[comp->len] = 0; break; Additional i've disabled the CHECK_COMPONENT lines. - Now display names are correctly interpreted. I'll investigate together with the Siemens developers where these (bogus?) operation ID's are coming from. And post an explaination and/or patch. By: dbruce (dbruce) 2005-07-15 03:49:59 It looks like the Siemens either doesn't follow the standards for PRI/EuroISDN Components, or has some very strange provider specific inplimentations. The Protocol is followed though. This is how the provided FACILITY IE should be interpreted: 91 suplimentary service (ROSE) aa unknown invoke component (unknown PDUs should be discarded) 06 length: 6 bytes (this PDU seems to have a provider specific usage) 80 01 00 82 01 00 8b Interpretation 01 length: 1 byte 00 Discard unknown PDUs a1 operation: Invoke 21 length: 33 bytes 02 type: integer 02 length: 2 bytes a2 70 value: 41584 - Invoke ID 06 Type: Object ID 04 length : 4 2b 0c 09 00 ( = 1.3.12.9.0 - appears to be provider specific) (object IDs sould be 5 or 7 bytes) a1 Operation: Invoke 15 length: 21 bytes 04 type: octet string 10 length: 16 bytes 42 41 52 43 4b 4d 41 4e 4e 20 4d 41 52 4b 55 53 (CBSDLNBOO NBSLVT) caller name? 02 type: integer 01 length: 1 01 By: wsandiford (wsandiford) 2005-07-16 07:52:42 Just as a point of interest, I don't think this message is a Siemens related issue as I also get the same warning every time a call is received on my PRI. My PRI is NI2 from Sprint Canada. As far as I am aware, Sprint Canada is using a 5ESS. By: Markus Barckmann (worta) 2005-07-18 09:53:28 I've just got an answer from the Siemens development [cut] The Object ID 1.3.12.9.0 is constructed (ECMA-143) as follows: iso (1) => identified-organization (3) => icd-ecma (12) => private-isdn-signalling-domain (9) => calling-name (0) I'm unable to tell, why there are 5 or 7 Bytes expected. [/cut] During my tests i've discovered another strange thing: If I try to perform an outbound call Asterisk => Siemens and facility sending is enabled the Siemens HiPath PBX answers instantly with RELEASE. Tracing this issue we found the HiPath whimpering something about a "mandatory message element missing". This leads to the conclusion that there maybe a general imparity in the interpretation of the ecma papers. I'll do another tracing session tomorrow and connect a Cisco device <=> Asterisk. :) By: Matthew Fredrickson (mattf) 2005-07-19 17:32:37 I'm changing this to a feature request since this message (or this format of message) is not intended to work in libpri. If someone would like to write a patch to interpret it, then I will certainly be open to the possiblity of accepting it back into libpri in case someone else sees callername placed in this particular format. By: Matthew Fredrickson (mattf) 2005-07-26 17:38:46 Anybody going to tackle this problem? By: Matthew Fredrickson (mattf) 2005-08-05 09:32:35 No feedback |