[SIPForum-discussion] Call Failed with SIP 486 Busy for G.723 codec

Kesavan Ramasamy kesavan.ramasamy at gmail.com
Tue Oct 26 04:39:46 UTC 2010


Hi Amit,

It could be a configuration issue.

If you are having a PBX, please check the timer values for ringing.

Regards,
Kesavan R

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Nitin Kapoor <nitinkapoorr at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Amit,
>
> As other said, 486 busy here, has nothing to do with codec negotiation.
> Ideally this thing comes when either remote entity is unwilling or unable to
> take the calls... And since TDM gateway is involved then it can be a code
> mapping issue aswell as sam already mentioned.
>
> You can check the Reason header or can check what ISDN code you are
> getting....or if you can share the ethereal traces for the same.
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin Kapoor
>
> On 5 October 2010 18:44, amit salunkhe <amitsalunkhe21 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All
>>
>> Can anybody tell me is this possible if we orginate call with G723 codec
>> for PLMN/PSTN mobile number, then that call will failed from destination
>> side within 1/2 ring with SIP response 486 Busy?
>>
>> Here call flow is described below.
>>
>> USEE A---->SBC1----->SBC2------>TDM g/w1-------->mobile MSC--------->USER
>> B
>>
>>
>> Please lte me know what aree the different reasons for such call failure
>> within 1 or 1/2 ring
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Amit--
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101026/fe6596d3/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the discussion mailing list