Koozali.org: home of the SME Server

Obsolete Releases => SME VoIP (Asterisk, SAIL etc) => Topic started by: rrkelly on January 20, 2011, 03:58:03 AM

Title: lasest zaptel-- pri problems
Post by: rrkelly on January 20, 2011, 03:58:03 AM
we are getting a new network and i need to reconfigure for a pri    i have an open vox d110 connecting to an adtrand 904 from the
provider. i have a green link but there seems to be a protocol problem ,can not get the link up framing signaling and encoding seem to
match, after talking with the providers tech  -- it looks like my zaptel is hosed or off from the kernnel version

we have been running on this system for a couple of years with out a pri  sme 7.5.1  2.6.9-89.0.25.ELsmp  sail-2.2.1-688 

does anyone know where i can find a matching zaptel or have any recommendations on an upgrade path
thanks
rob
Title: Re: latest zaptel-- pri problems
Post by: rrkelly on January 20, 2011, 04:40:41 PM
should i load dhahdi-linux-kmdl-2.6.9-89.0.16.EL-2.2.0.2-65.el4.i686.rpm to get the latest zaptel or fix my zaptel problem?
is libpri included in the above package?
 
my current kernel is 2.6.9-89.0.25.ELsmp #1 SMP Thu May 6 12:28:03 EDT 2010 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
Title: Re: lasest zaptel-- pri problems
Post by: SARK devs on January 23, 2011, 01:45:58 PM
You have old sail (688) and newish EL4 linux.  You will need to find the correct Asterisk rpms for your kernel release. This will almost certainly be a DAHDI rather than zaptel release and since 688 was written before DAHDI, it still won't work.   Your system probably hasn't worked with zaptel/dahdi for some time.  You could revert to an old kernel and an old zaptel release (1.4.23 or earlier of Asterisk) but it is unlikely you'll find the rpms now.

Easiest way forward might be to do a fresh install on another machine and then cutover once you are happy that all is good. 

Kind Regards

S

   




Title: Re: lasest zaptel-- pri problems
Post by: rrkelly on February 01, 2011, 01:50:34 AM
i had to build them from source --- the main problem was the tdm card was bad -- found it with a pattern loop back test -- it was literally 1 bit off
thanks
rob