[SIPForum-discussion] Multiple DTMF events received for a single DTMF event

Konstantin Bokarius bokarius at comcast.net
Mon Dec 10 19:32:37 UTC 2007


Ashish - 

 

What do you mean by termination and what exactly was the resolution to your
problem?  Do you mean they matched the other SIP system's DTMF settings to
Asterisk?

 

From: ashish dubey [mailto:ashishdubey1981 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 1:33 AM
To: Konstantin Bokarius
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-discussion] Multiple DTMF events received for a
single DTMF event

 

Hi!!!,

I faced the same issue, when I was testing with one of my termination, at
that time, I was getting some weired dtmf before my actual DTMF string,
well, at that time when I called my termination they matched the DTMF used
(info, rfc2833 etc.) with my settings at asterisk and problem resolved. I am
not sure about this but this info may help you to steer your debugging in
right direction. 

Regards, 

Ashish 

On Dec 10, 2007 4:59 AM, Konstantin Bokarius <bokarius at comcast.net> wrote:

I have a call bridged through Asterisk to another SIP system.  Unless the
't' option in the Dial application is specified (this option is to allow the
called user to redirect the callee) each time a DTMF event is received by
Asterisk from the callee the called SIP system received 4-6 multiples of
that DTMF event.  So if the callee hit '16' on his keypad the receiving
system might receive '1111666666'.

 

When Asterisk dials another kind of SIP system I don't see this problem -
only when dialing a specific system (and that system's DTMF features cannot
be configured).

 

Has anyone experienced anything like this?


_______________________________________________
This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit
http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20071210/35df46c9/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the discussion mailing list