On Tuesday 17 January 2006 09:42, Darlon wrote: > UniCall/1 Making a new call with CRN 32769 Jan 17 08:46:28 WARNING[11622]: > chan_unicall.c:627 unicall_report: MFC/R2 UniCall/1 0001 -> [1/ > 1/Idle /Idle ] -- Called g1/34310750 > unicall_report: MFC/R2 UniCall/1 Far end disconnected(cause=Switching > equipment congestion [42]) - state 0x40 Jan 17 08:46:36 WARNING[11622]: > chan_unicall.c:2644 handle_uc_event: Unicall/1 event Far end disconnected > Jan 17 08:46:36 WARNING[11622]: chan_unicall.c:2930 handle_uc_event: CRN > 32769 - far disconnected cause=Switching equipment congestion [42] --
Citando o pai da criança: >> Jan 16 15:55:07 WARNING[3381]: MFC/R2 UniCall/1 Call control(1) >> Jan 16 15:55:07 WARNING[3381]: MFC/R2 UniCall/1 Make call >> Jan 16 15:55:07 WARNING[3381]: MFC/R2 UniCall/1 Making a new call >> with CRN 32769 > > When we seize the line with this...... > >> Jan 16 15:55:07 WARNING[3381]: MFC/R2 UniCall/1 0001 -> >> [1/ 1/Idle /Idle ] >> Jan 16 15:55:07 WARNING[3381]: Unicall/1 event Dialing > > the far end should respond with a seize ack signal. It didn't. This > looks like a dead E1. > >> Jan 16 15:55:09 WARNING[3381]: MFC/R2 UniCall/1 >> seize_ack_wait_expired >> Jan 16 15:55:09 WARNING[3381]: MFC/R2 UniCall/1 R2 prot. err. >> [1/ 40/Seize /Idle ] cause 32776 - Seize ack >> timed out >> Jan 16 15:55:09 WARNING[3381]: MFC/R2 UniCall/1 1001 -> >> [1/ 1/Idle /Idle ] >> Jan 16 15:55:09 WARNING[3381]: Unicall/1 event Protocol failure > > I assume the initial unblocking went OK, so the E1 cannot be > completely dead. It looks like it is not working properly, though. > > Steve Já tiveram esse problema aqui, com cabos e tal e foi só trocar os conectores BNC/balun que parou de dar mensagens como essas. Talvez o seu caso seja outro, mas esses são os meus 0,00002 centavos. -- Caio Begotti (caio1982) http://caio.ueberalles.net