On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 22:41 -0500, C F wrote: > On 1/9/06, Beau Hargis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have been messing with Asterisk for months and got it working well > > with a SIP connection, but this is the first time I have set it up with > > TDM cards. The cards are configured, working and the T-1's (configured > > for PRI/DCHAN) and I can even call into it if I add the DNIS as an > > extension to default context. That is the oddity. > > It's not odd, as to Asterisk a T1 is just another interface (just like > your SIP phone), so when it rings (it doesn't actualy ring, it just > singals an incoming call) the T1 supplies the DNIS (AKA DID) as the > extension it wants to dial. Asterisk then looks in the context where > the T1 starts if the extension exists.
Sounds logical in the context of Asterisk itself. I just wanted to make sure that it was indeed supposed to work like that. > > > > I can find nowhere in the documentation that says anything about having > > to create separate extensions for all the DNIS that are assigned to the > > trunks. The message I am getting when I follow the docs on configuring > > zapata and the dial plan is this: > > > > -- Extension '2061234567' in context 'default' from '206987654' does > > not exist. Rejecting call on channel 0/16, span 4 > > > > When I add '_206XXXXXXX,1,Goto(demo,s,1)' I can get it to work. > > This is what it should do, since it has no extension defined for 206987654. > > > > > This is going to be for an IVR application not a PBX. So, numbers are > > routed down the trunks and the machine picks up and runs the application > > assigned to the DNIS that came down the line. And, I am getting the > > right ANI (CALLER_ID) and DNIS (Number Called). Problem is that if I > > have to configure every DNIS, or a pattern for them, I cant have a fall > > through. > > > > Well, you want the provider to decide where it starts? how so? oh, I > know how, using DNIS. The provider is telling you what the caller > dialed (DNIS) otherwise you pick up with IVRa for a call meant for > IVRb, now Asterisk has to be configured to do something with it (it > being the number dialed). I was expecting it to drop into the s extension in the default context as was configured in zaptel. It is obvious that a hardphone on someone's desk has an extension when it is hooked up to asterisk as a PBX, but I am coming from working with other IVR systems going back to the early 90's and the it has worked has been that a call comes in on a trunk and there is a DNIS (DID) routing table that starts an app or context. The concept of an extension is relevant for a PBX, but seems to be adopted to allow incoming calls on a T-1 trunk. I am used to DID's being routed to applications, not being treated as an extension. > > Is this how it is supposed to behave? From all the docs I can find, it > > doesn't seem so. Seems to me that the s extension in [default] should > > work. What are other people's experiences hooking up TDM hardware for > > incoming calls? > > > > The s extension will only be used if no extension is given and there > is an incoming call (like when asterisk dials using: > Dial(tech/resource) without anything after the resource). On POTS it > means every incoming call since there is no means of signaling what > extension (other then using DTMF). With PRIs if there would be a > signal for an incoming call, but no DNIS is received then it would > also start at s. However in your case there is an extension coming in, > it's the same as dialing from a sip phone connected to your Asterisk > box 206987654. There must be an extension defined for this to work. > The documentation is everywhere, its just the misunderstanding that a > T1 is special, while it is in terms of the signalling, it is NOT > special in any other way, including the way Asterisk sees it. Once > configured Asterisk sees it as whatever the logic of the contexts you > have setup on that box. But from the point of view of a device, as > long as there is an extension coming in it has to be defined, > otherwise asterisk will look for the i extension. This is just not obvious from reading the documentation for months. I have written my own app modules for asterisk in the last couple of months, so it's not like I am not familiar with the internals of how it works. It's just still odd to think of building IVR apps the way asterisk works as a PBX, even if asterisk is more flexible and powerful. Still a hell of a lot better than the alternative. Thanks a lot for the input. I can tell everything that it's actually working and not b0rked. _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
