[VoIP] Adtran outpulsing

Thu May 31 23:38:53 CDT 2007

I have a TDM400 still in my system,  ( Max, you DID mean a TDM400 and 
not a Digium T1 card, didn't you?? )  but right now the FIRST thing I 
need to do is some fixing on my EM switch.
Some may have discovered that there are problems dialing into my  REAL 
switch.
I also have a machine here I configured some time ago with a single port 
T1 card by Sangoma that could add to the confusion, as well as a machine 
with the Sangoma version of the TDM 400 analog card.
And then, of course, the Cisco 3810.
And I have spent LOTS of time lately playing with the Cisco 3810 
configuration, almost wiping it out in an abortive effort to 
troubleshoot the second one, and only this hour MAY have it back to 
where it was late yesterday evening. So IF I can get things together . . .
I also have a make/break tester to throw at the problem.

And the grass and weeds keep growing, the bills pile up, so tomorrow 
will be difficult.

Too many toys, not enough time.

John Novack

ikjtel wrote:
> FWIW, the X100P uses a different low-level driver
> (wcfxo.c) than channel-bank ports use (wct1xxp.c et
> al.), and the Digium TDM400 uses yet another one
> (wctdm.c) although all of these in turn rely upon
> zaptel.c for the generic processing...  Then again SIP
> has yet another driver (and is even more different in
> that user-space [asterisk] speaks to SIP devices
> differently  - chan_sip.c instead of chan_zap.c) All
> clear??? :-)
>
> It is easy to hear the irregularity in the outpulsing
> (at least it was some time ago when dialling thru
> Lee's system which had the "hearpulsing" patch
> applied)...
>
> The way in which the signalling is conveyed in the
> Adtran-FXO case is by way of the "RBS bits"
> (robbed-bit signalling) using the A and B bits in the
> T1 frames.
>
> Inasmuch as the X100P's seem to work OK, it is
> tempting to rule out zaptel.c as being the culprit. 
> This leaves wct[e]xxxp.c, the T1 itself and the card,
> and the Adtran as possible suspects. One would *hope*
> that the Adtran would be somewhat more robust than to
> fall into such a stupid bug, but it's possible I
> suppose.  The T1 and card are too stupid to be prime
> suspects, but again it's possible.
>
> By amassing more data points we might be able to
> remove one or more of the remaining suspects from the
> list.
> I think it's probably safe to say that SIP is a
> different enough beast that it's not in play in this
> elimination excercise.  However, if someone has a
> genuine TDM400 with FXO's (probably the Varion
> "clones" would only add to the confusion here) it
> might provide an interesting data point as to whether
> they have the irregularity or not...  Likewise, if
> someone has another brand of channel bank FXO other
> than an Adtran one it would be *very* interesting to
> see if the problem occurs there as well...  (My own
> unsubstantiated suspicion is that it would).
>
> Unfortunately my channel banks only have FXS, and the
> one time I looked to see how hard it might be to rig
> up a test environment, it seemed to be unfeasible.  It
> didn't appear that the signalling bits worked the same
> way (or similarly enough) ...
>
> More data / feedback is welcome, of course...
>
> Best
>
> Max
>
> p.s. One *could* open a trouble ticket with Asterisk,
> I suppose ;-)
>
> --- Lee Spenadel <lee at spenadel.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> The Adtran problem may not be apparent in all
>> situations.  Russ Price did
>> some testing after my reported problems with
>> consistent dial pulsing from
>> the Adtran FXO to my SxS.  Russ' and my switches
>> were somewhat intolerant of
>> the timing of the Adtran pulsing.  Russ tried
>> modifying the pulsing
>> make/break times in asterisk with no change in
>> pulsing to his SxS.   In my
>> case it lead to mis-dialing of extensions.  It
>> doesn't do this all of the
>> time.  It's somewhat intermittent.  When I placed a
>> WildCard X100P in my
>> Asterisk box and set it up to pulse to my SxS, all
>> worked fine.
>>
>> I guess the bottom line is that the Adtran FXO does
>> pulse out the digits,
>> but depending on the tolerances of your switch, you
>> may or may not have a
>> problem. 
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: voip-bounces at ckts.info
>> [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf Of
>> Jonathan Kay
>> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:41 AM
>> To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches
>> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Adtran (was Cisco 3810)
>>
>> Lee Spenadel wrote:
>>     
>>> So was I.  How much was it?  I'm wondering if that
>>>       
>> would be a nice device
>> to
>>     
>>> use for FXO in lieu of the Adtran given the
>>>       
>> outpulsing problem toward my
>>     
>>> SxS.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> Is there a definite problem with Adtran channel
>> banks and rotary dialling?
>> I'm more than a bit hacked off if that's the case,
>> after paying loads of 
>> shipping to the UK and big bucks to obtain an FXO
>> loaded Adtran.
>> I've still not had time to set the thing up so far.
>>
>> Jon K
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>       ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!   http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>   