Koozali.org: home of the SME Server
Obsolete Releases => SME VoIP (Asterisk, SAIL etc) => Topic started by: compsos on July 13, 2009, 02:47:47 PM
-
Hi S
Not sure if this only started after upgrading to 2.3.1-20 or it was just going to start at the same time.
Basically a TDM422B card seems to be only working a single FXO port on port 1. The 2nd FXO deflects all incoming calls as busy, a internal call to any analogue phone on the FXS ports goes straight to message bank. The phones have no dial tone.
The only clue I have found is in the console
[Jul 13 22:35:00] WARNING[31878]: channel.c:3210 ast_request: No channel type registered for 'DAHDI'
[Jul 13 22:35:00] WARNING[31878]: app_dial.c:1272 dial_exec_full: Unable to create channel of type 'DAHDI' (cause 66 - Channel not implemented)
== Everyone is busy/congested at this time (1:0/0/1)
The dahdi_cfg -vv did throw
DAHDI Tools Version - 2.1.0.2
Notice: Configuration file is /etc/dahdi/system.conf
line 15: Syntax error. Should be <keyword>=<value>
line 17: Syntax error. Should be <keyword>=<value>
But issuing /usr/bin/dos2unix /etc/dahdi/system.conf seems to have fixed that and dahdi loads OK. How can I test/prove the 3 (1 FXO & 2 FXS) modules that now seem suspect?
Thanks
Details
asterisk-1.4.25.1-78.el4
asterisk-addons-1.4.8-22.el4
dahdi-linux-kmdl-2.6.9-78.0.22.ELsmp-2.1.0.4-60.el4
dahdi-tools-2.1.0.2-59.el4
dahdi-linux-2.1.0.4-60.el4
kernel-2.6.9-78.0.22.ELsmp
-
OK Got the extension FXS Ports back but still the 1 FXO port reports busy. The module is a X100M card. Is there a way to reset this card? I have shut down and removed the module card and reseated but made no difference.
-
with the card fitted and running, at the asterisk console do
dahdi show channels
also - at the linux console
cat /proc/dahdi/1
should show the card channels
Usually its the FXS channels which give trouble, not the FXO
Best
S
-
Thanks S
I was unable to see any difference between the working one and the one rejecting all calls
Chan Extension Context Language MOH Interpret
pseudo default default
1 mainmenu default
2 mainmenu default
3 internal default
4 internal default
Failing Card
Channel: 2*CLI>
File Descriptor: 22
Span: 1
Extension:
Dialing: no
Context: mainmenu
Caller ID:
Calling TON: 0
Caller ID name:
Destroy: 0
InAlarm: 0
Signalling Type: FXS Kewlstart
Radio: 0
Owner: <None>
Real: <None>
Callwait: <None>
Threeway: <None>
Confno: -1
Propagated Conference: -1
Real in conference: 0
DSP: no
Relax DTMF: yes
Dialing/CallwaitCAS: 0/0
Default law: ulaw
Fax Handled: no
Pulse phone: no
Echo Cancellation: 128 taps unless TDM bridged, currently OFF
Actual Confinfo: Num/0, Mode/0x0000
Actual Confmute: No
Hookstate (FXS only): Onhook
Working Card
File Descriptor: 21
Span: 1
Extension: CLI>
Dialing: no
Context: mainmenu
Caller ID:
Calling TON: 0>
Caller ID name:
Destroy: 0*CLI>
InAlarm: 0
Signalling Type: FXS Kewlstart
Radio: 0
Owner: <None>I>
Real: <None>
Callwait: <None>
Threeway: <None>
Confno: -1*CLI>
Propagated Conference: -1
Real in conference: 0
DSP: no
Relax DTMF: yes
Dialing/CallwaitCAS: 0/0
Default law: ulaw
Fax Handled: no
Pulse phone: no
Echo Cancellation: 128 taps unless TDM bridged, currently OFF
Actual Confinfo: Num/0, Mode/0x0000
Actual Confmute: No
Hookstate (FXS only): Onhook
Span 1: WCTDM/4 "Wildcard TDM400P REV I Board 5" (MASTER)
1 WCTDM/4/0 FXSKS (In use) (EC: MG2)
2 WCTDM/4/1 FXSKS (In use) (EC: MG2)
3 WCTDM/4/2 FXOKS (In use) (EC: MG2)
4 WCTDM/4/3 FXOKS (In use) (EC: MG2)
Both say they are "Onhook" but all calls on card 2 are instantly rejected as busy with no activity on the console. This is the 2nd time a card in this position has failed with no warnings or messages. It would be great to be able to pin point the cause.
Thanks
-
Hard to know what to suggest. You could try swapping the daughterboards around to see if the fault follows the board. If it does then you probabaly need a new daughterboard.
Over the years we have had quite a few TDM FXO modules blow, usually as a result of some kind of surge on the phone line (we've had a few go during thunder storms).
Best
S
-
Thanks Jeff
I have ordered new daughterboard. Just strange how the last one to fail was in the same position.