Yealink Forums
Multiple Lines on a Single Phone - Printable Version

+- Yealink Forums (
+-- Forum: IP Phone Series (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Configuration (/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+--- Thread: Multiple Lines on a Single Phone (/showthread.php?tid=41156)

Multiple Lines on a Single Phone - TomEdwards - 09-26-2017 06:46 PM


I am attempting to have multiple appearance directory numbers (MADN) on multiple phone sets. They are ringing as expected, but when the second call arrives to that set, the line is marked "busy", even though that line is not active.

From my testing, it appears if any line is active on the set, all lines are marked busy. If I enable Call Waiting, the other lines will ring, even if one is active.

The problem with that is I want them to be marked busy if in use, so the "Hunt" action will take place and roll the next call to the next vacant line, which could be answered from another phone.

I hope this makes some sense.... I am using T46G sets....

RE: Multiple Lines on a Single Phone - Evan_Yealink - 09-28-2017 03:46 AM


Good day!

For your question, I’ve attached one parameter for your reference.

Configures the maximum number of concurrent calls per line key for the IP phone. It applies to all registered lines.
If it is set to 0, there is no limit for the number of concurrent calls.
phone_setting.call_appearance.calls_per_linekey = 2
It means that you can have up to two concurrent calls per line key on the IP phone.

Note: The value configured by the parameter
“account.X.phone_setting.call_appearance.calls_per_linekey” takes precedence over that configured by this parameter. It is not applicable to SIP-T19(P) E2 IP phones.

Please use the call_appearance.cfg file via auto provision, and then have a test.

Any question, freely to let me know.


RE: Multiple Lines on a Single Phone - TomEdwards - 11-21-2017 09:29 PM

What version is this option in? V81? I am at V80 and do not see that. I rolled back to V80 due to a weird issue with the "Redial_Tone" option. I honestly have not pursued that issue in V81 due to other deadlines.