asterisk users - Nov 2003 - MGCP RFC (2705) vs. PacketCable MGCP spec

We are working on a new implementation of asterisk. We are using a fiber-served
WorldWide Packet switch at the home that incorporates a VOIP T2 switch that
feeds 2 POTS connections. We are told that the T2 is programmed with code that
follows the PacketCable spec. This version has a problem with the
'congestion' message which is based on the MGCP RFC (2705) spec. This
causes the T2 to become somewhat corrupted and to play a fluctuating buzzing
sound (congestion tone?) after a number is pressed. Dial tone is present. A
number may be called, but the tone will stay on. It takes a hard reset of the T2
to restore normal service.

Is there any global way to adhere to the PacketCable spec? Do we need to change
the extensions.conf file to use something other than congestion? Are there other
conflicts that will bite us?

Any input is truly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20031124/8321094f/attachment.htm

I think we have to figure out what the difference is.  It'll take going
through the "mgcp debug" output to see what is going on.

Mark

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, ProvoCityPower wrote:
> We are working on a new implementation of asterisk. We are using a
fiber-served WorldWide Packet switch at the home that incorporates a VOIP T2
switch that feeds 2 POTS connections. We are told that the T2 is programmed with
code that follows the PacketCable spec. This version has a problem with the
'congestion' message which is based on the MGCP RFC (2705) spec. This
causes the T2 to become somewhat corrupted and to play a fluctuating buzzing
sound (congestion tone?) after a number is pressed. Dial tone is present. A
number may be called, but the tone will stay on. It takes a hard reset of the T2
to restore normal service.
>
> Is there any global way to adhere to the PacketCable spec? Do we need to
change the extensions.conf file to use something other than congestion? Are
there other conflicts that will bite us?
>
> Any input is truly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff