RE: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle ComplexFailoverSituations
Is it possible for you to explain in more detail the situation involved. I'm still thinking that what you're trying to achieve can be done at least with the help of DUNDi weights, but I still don't think I have a full grasp of the solution you're crafting. Regards, - Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Garstang Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:50 AM To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle ComplexFailoverSituations > -Original Message- > From: Watkins, Bradley > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Watkins, > Bradley > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:41 AM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle Complex > FailoverSituations > > > Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're looking to do, Aaron has hit > the nail on the head here. You need to set it up so that the > secondary, tertiary, etc. boxes are weighted differently. That way, > you need not know or care about the weights directly within the > dialplan. It isn't as simple as that. When a failure occurs, we only want to use a DUNDi route when it's the primary for a queue. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle ComplexFailoverSituations
> -Original Message- > From: Aaron Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:54 AM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle > ComplexFailoverSituations > > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Douglas Garstang wrote: > > It isn't as simple as that. When a failure occurs, we only > want to use a DUNDi route when it's the primary for a queue. > > Then don't use DUNDi for queues, use it just for the phones. > Seriously, > you obviously know exactly which servers you want to be primary for a > certain queue, program it into the dialplan. DUNDi should > only be used > for DYNAMIC extensions, i.e. phones that may or may not be > registered at > the time of the call, phones that move, phones that register with > different servers at different times. > > If you're deadset on using DUNDi for it, set up different > DUNDi contexts > so that you can say "these queues are available here" and > "these queues > are available there". > > Honestly, it seems like a waste of server time to use DUNDi > for something > that you know is going to be on a particular server > regardless of what > happens. If we don't use DUNDi, then how are we going to get the Queue() application to follow the pbx server, and execute on the same Asterisk box that the phones are registered on? Doug. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle ComplexFailoverSituations
> -Original Message- > From: Aaron Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:57 AM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle > ComplexFailoverSituations > > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Douglas Garstang wrote: > > DUNDi does not handle the situation of phone failover as > well as static numbers (ie queues), which is what we are > trying to acheive. > > I'm confused, explain the phone failover not working to me. We need our queue application to follow the primary pbx server for a set of phones within a company. See my 'ACD Distributed Scenario' post made a little earlier for a full explanation. Doug. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle ComplexFailoverSituations
> -Original Message- > From: Stephen Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:41 AM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle > ComplexFailoverSituations > > > On 15/06/06, Douglas Garstang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Who said I was a C programmer? > > Speaking for myself, I just assumed that you understood that the > behaviour of an open-source application was the result of contributed > code. Your message read to me like something of a demand that > "someone" fixed it. You are probably trying to do something pretty > fancy in your dialplan and that probably brings requirements that the > original authors didn't foresee. > > They are scratching their itch. As you said, DUNDi was Mark's > initiative to make a "open access" call routing system, rather than to > do with failover. > > If you can hack Asterisk dialplan code, then I think if you open that > file, take a look at other code that sets variables (search for a > variable name you know is set, like DIALSTATUS), do some cut and paste > and you'll discover that, guess what: you ARE a C programmer. Actually, I'd say I'm not a C programmer. In Asterisk 1.2.7.1, in pbx_dundi.c, function dundi_lookup_exec(), I Added this line: pbx_builtin_setvar_helper(chan, "DUNDWEIGHT", dr[x].weight); right below the two other lines that set the DUNDTECH and DUNDDEST variables. When I execute my DundiLookup application in the dialplan, the Asterisk console bombs out. I assume it's core dumping or something. I don't know why though as I only added another line like the ones above. The DUNDTECH and DUNDDEST variables are not being referenced anywhere else in any file. ALSO... The DundiLookup application command has been deprecated: Jun 15 12:44:14 WARNING[2935]: pbx_dundi.c:3872 dundi_lookup_exec: This application has been deprecated in favor of the DUNDILOOKUP dialplan function. In favour of the DUNDILookup function. The DUNDILookup function does NOT seem to set the DUNDTECH and DUNDDEST variables, so it seems we have in effect gone backwards in functionality. In any case, I guess I'll have to try and figure out how to modify the string that DUNDILookup returns, which I'm sure will be harder than adding a new variable to DundiLookup() Doug. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle ComplexFailoverSituations
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Douglas Garstang wrote: We need our queue application to follow the primary pbx server for a set of phones within a company. See my 'ACD Distributed Scenario' post made a little earlier for a full explanation. OK, let me get this straight. You want the phones on the SAME server to hit the queues on THAT server only. Right? If that's right, then why use DUNDi for the queues, just set up an extension (i.e. the queue entry point) that goes straight into the queue instead of using DUNDi for it, which adds more logic to something VERY simple. Since the phones are registered to that server, obviously they will drop into the local queue and not some random one. You're making something dynamic that really shouldn't be dynamic at all. When the failover happens, the new primary server will have the queue set up, and anyone calling in will be calling into the queue on that server. Now, if you're calling in from another server, i.e. someone outside calling in, you can then use DUNDi with weights to drop them onto the right server, but that's another story. Finally, in order for the LOCAL server's DUNDi response to show up, you have to add the server to dundi.conf. So, so pbx1 has to be in pbx1's file, just like the other servers do. Make sense? -- Aaron Daniel Computer Systems Technician Sam Houston State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] (936) 294-4198 ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle ComplexFailoverSituations
> -Original Message- > From: Douglas Garstang > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:51 PM > To: 'Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion' > Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle > ComplexFailoverSituations > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Stephen Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:41 AM > > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle > > ComplexFailoverSituations > > > > > > On 15/06/06, Douglas Garstang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Who said I was a C programmer? > > > > Speaking for myself, I just assumed that you understood that the > > behaviour of an open-source application was the result of > contributed > > code. Your message read to me like something of a demand that > > "someone" fixed it. You are probably trying to do something pretty I get annoyed Stephen when Digium goes around calling Asterisk 'enterprise grade', which in my opinion it really isn't. I'd consider distributed ACD queues to be a requirement for an enterprise grade product, but it's becoming apparent that there is no mechanism for implementing this. I'm being told that DUNDi isn't the right man for the job. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle ComplexFailoverSituations
On 6/15/06, Douglas Garstang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I get annoyed Stephen when Digium goes around calling Asterisk 'enterprise grade', which in my opinion it really isn't. I'd consider distributed ACD queues to be a requirement for an enterprise grade product, but it's becoming apparent that there is no mechanism for implementing this. I'm being told that DUNDi isn't the right man for the job. I'd suggest you ask Digium for your money back. Leif. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle ComplexFailoverSituations
Leif Madsen wrote: On 6/15/06, Douglas Garstang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I get annoyed Stephen when Digium goes around calling Asterisk 'enterprise grade', which in my opinion it really isn't. I'd consider distributed ACD queues to be a requirement for an enterprise grade product, but it's becoming apparent that there is no mechanism for implementing this. I'm being told that DUNDi isn't the right man for the job. I'd suggest you ask Digium for your money back. Leif. LOL. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle ComplexFailoverSituations
On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 05:20 -0400, Leif Madsen wrote: > On 6/15/06, Douglas Garstang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I get annoyed Stephen when Digium goes around calling Asterisk 'enterprise > > grade', which in my opinion it really isn't. I'd consider distributed ACD > > queues to be a requirement for an enterprise grade product, but it's > > becoming apparent that there is no mechanism for implementing this. I'm > > being told that DUNDi isn't the right man for the job. > > I'd suggest you ask Digium for your money back. And throw your considerable refund and then some at vendors that supposedly do support your concept of "enterprise grade". You get what you pay for. Don't like it, go play somewhere else. I saw some slick marketingware over at http://www.stalker.com/content/sipfarm.htm Seems to support SIP clusters/loadbalancing although you never know with marketingware until you have forked over the big bucks. Regards, Patrick ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] DUNDi Not Able to Handle ComplexFailoverSituations
On Jun 25, 2006, at 3:29 AM, Patrick wrote: On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 05:20 -0400, Leif Madsen wrote: On 6/15/06, Douglas Garstang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I get annoyed Stephen when Digium goes around calling Asterisk 'enterprise grade', which in my opinion it really isn't. I'd consider distributed ACD queues to be a requirement for an enterprise grade product, but it's becoming apparent that there is no mechanism for implementing this. I'm being told that DUNDi isn't the right man for the job. I'd suggest you ask Digium for your money back. And throw your considerable refund and then some at vendors that supposedly do support your concept of "enterprise grade". You get what you pay for. Don't like it, go play somewhere else. I saw some slick marketingware over at http://www.stalker.com/content/sipfarm.htm Seems to support SIP clusters/loadbalancing although you never know with marketingware until you have forked over the big bucks. Stalker has been good to there word in my experiences with them although there products aren't cheap... Usually they also have a free trial period (or they have in the past. Marty ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
