Unable to set Call Parking from documentation

Asterisk Asterisk Support
1

I have tried to start the getting the call parking to work in its most basic form and have followed the example given in the documentation in the wiki https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Call+Parking

I am using asterisk 13 on a system that is up and running. From the documentation I understand that the call park functionality was changed heavily in version 12 and now only needs the featuremap to be switched on in the features.conf file. (oddly there is still lots of commented out call park config options at the top of the my file).
I have, however, placed the required options in res_parking.conf - a new file I had to create as documented.

So to that effect I have applied the example in the demo. However, things do not seem so simple. Without an entry in the extensions.conf file I get 00001: Requested DTMF feature parkcall not available.

with the include statement in extensions.conf I get parking-example tries to include none existent context. Which sort of makes sense since it seems to reference nothing defined.

I hope I am just missing something obvious, but the documentation seems to have lead me here while I am lacking some other information.

If someone could shed some light on this for me, Iā€™d be most grateful.

2

In features.conf you still need to have the parking key defined in your featuremap if you want to use DTMF based one-touch parking.

The lots are configured in the res_parking.conf file however.

You may also need to set channel variables for where to park the call.

Try the examples posted on the Digium Blog, They helped me with my 13 parking configuration.

http://blogs.asterisk.org/2016/03/30/setup-call-parking/

1 Like
3

Thank you that helped a lot and with a little bit of nudging it has worked for us, which now allows us to move on.

I am most grateful for your help. Is it worth mentioning that the syntax on the blog used ā€œ=ā€ in the config, while mine and the wiki example makes use of ā€œ=>ā€ which added a little more spice to investigation. Iā€™m guessing that it must be a delimiter thing at build time or something. Iā€™m personally finding all these variations in standards a bit frustrating (a bit of British understatement here !).

4

The parser accepts either ā€œ=ā€ or ā€œ=>ā€. They mean the same thing.