Re: [asterisk-users] DIALSTATUS vs HANGUPCAUSE

That's really good info Tony! Thanks very much for the response! I will consider this to implement a better approach for the failed cases! Cheers, Patrick Wakano On 14 March 2018 at 20:44, Tony Mountifield wrote: > In article

Re: [asterisk-users] DIALSTATUS vs HANGUPCAUSE

In article , Patrick Wakano wrote: > > Thanks Dovid! > Indeed looks a bug but regardless of this, this problem made me think that > the HANGUPCAUSE could be used for this purpose with benefits. > I couldn't

Re: [asterisk-users] DIALSTATUS vs HANGUPCAUSE

Thanks Dovid! Indeed looks a bug but regardless of this, this problem made me think that the HANGUPCAUSE could be used for this purpose with benefits. I couldn't find an explanation about when DIALSTATUS would actually be better. The HANGUPCAUSE was reworked in version 11 (

Re: [asterisk-users] DIALSTATUS vs HANGUPCAUSE

I would think that is a bug since the only time DIALSTATUS = BUSY is where you got a 486 or 600 (as per https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Hangup+Cause+Mappings). On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Patrick Wakano wrote: > Hello list, > Hope all doing well! > > I've

[asterisk-users] DIALSTATUS vs HANGUPCAUSE

Hello list, Hope all doing well! I've been checking some cases when a Dial fails and dialplan execution continues to handle this. I am finding it a little confusing how we should handle the DIALSTATUS and the HANGUPCAUSE in this situation More specifically, I am facing a case in version