;-> IMHO that's more than 12 months. > if the MAX dials out for a predetermined time (a.k.a. radius > Ascend-Callback-Duration or something like that), e.g. 3 > seconds, that would be enough to signal the number on the d-channel. > It doesn't matter WHY there is no callback, only that ther IS NO > callback at all. Therefore the disconnect cause is NOT needed and > it's not necessary to wait for it before releasing the route which > causes the security error. Another option I have mentioned here several times would be to simply give ExpCallback aka Callback-Expected-Yes a real meaning: If an out- going call is made with Callback-Expected-Yes then it is no intention to build a link and thus doesn't need to allocate the route in the first place. If a call is Callback-Expected-Yes than another incoming call on the same profile is NO call collision but instead could be used to drop the outgoing call and then has to be answered. The information is already there - it just has to be used more educated than "uuh - we won't call out again for the next 90 seconds". > > I don't think it's the MAX "holding on" to the call - but the call disconnect > > message is being delayed on it's way to the MAX. > > Exactly. As Ascend knows that, why is it so difficult to get the > above fix implemented ? My impression is that Ascend can develop some selective ignorance to certain problems. Sometimes this finally resolves (Ho Ho Ho - Leased/Leased is there in 6.0!) and sometimes not. We hoped the callback problem would resolve in 4.6Csomething when the mysterious ExpCallback made it into the code - but what ExpCallback really does shaked us. > > I guess while we investigate this, you may want to do that. Unless the > > authenticate trick works....I'll check into it more here. > > > there is nothing to investigate further. The problem is clear, > e.g. German Telekom claims they stay with the standard for delaying > the disconnect cause. So the only way to get this problem fixed is > the above mentioned. I would doubt that. Q.931 specifies ONE case where a disconnect can be delayed: "Call Refused" aka 21 can be delayed up to 7 seconds or such on a P-T-MP S0 in order for other devices to still grap the call. There is no reason, however, why "Normal Call Clearing" should be delayed as it is more like "I take it and immediately drop it" instead of "I won't answer this". To be silent of the delays we have seen in reality which were far beyond 7 s. There _is_ something wrong there. > Come on, it's a few minutes work to implement the timeout value > for an outgoing call choosable by a parameter. Or give ExpCallback a more educated meaning. We are using the wrong- IP-in-outgoing-profile-hack to trick the Max but maybe this tricking is a source of other problems (I could imagine memory leaks to build up on it). -- Kanther-Line: PGP SSH IDEA MD5 GOST RIPE-MD160 3DES RSA FEAL32 RC4 +-o-+--------------------------------------------------------+-o-+ | o | \\\- Brain Inside -/// | o | | o | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | o | | o | Andre' Beck (ABPSoft) beck@ibh-dd.de XLink PoP Dresden | o | +-o-+--------------------------------------------------------+-o-+ ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++ To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com To get FAQ'd: <<A HREF="http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq">http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq</A>> </PRE> <!--X-MsgBody-End--> <!--X-Follow-Ups--> <!--X-Follow-Ups-End--> <!--X-References--> <HR> <STRONG>References</STRONG>: <UL> <LI><STRONG><A HREF="msg11387.html">(ASCEND) Re: ascend-users-digest V96 #920</A></STRONG></LI> <UL> <LI><EM>From</EM>: "Torsten Droste" <td@pop-stuttgart.net></LI> </UL> </UL> <!--X-References-End--> <!--X-BotPNI--> <HR> <UL> <LI>Prev by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg11484.html">Re: (ASCEND) Feature Request</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg11482.html">Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Prev by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg11387.html">(ASCEND) Re: ascend-users-digest V96 #920</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg11390.html">(ASCEND) 5.0Ap36, is this normal?</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Index(es): <UL> <LI><A HREF="maillist.html#11483"><STRONG>Main</STRONG></A></LI> <LI><A HREF="thrd266.html#11483"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> <!--X-BotPNI-End--> <!--X-User-Footer--> <!--X-User-Footer-End--> </BODY> </HTML>