If the 666 (devil) is the first dial rule, and other dial strings hit it, what
causes the match? Do you have 666 as optional possibly? Look at advanced and
ensure it is not optional or anyone dialing 10 digits will hit it.
Sent from my twiddling thumbs.
Henry Dogger wrote:
>I have seen this
Will check the askozia article if I can find something in there to help me out
:)
But it can be easily reproduced bij anyone, no asterisk is needed to encounter
this behavior.
Just add a custom dial rule to your dial plan, which matches 666 and 10 digits,
and then try to dial a mobile number whi
Since the Asterisk box is setup as a user also "I think" it creates a
circular logic which might actually defeat dial plan permissions. You
might consider a different way to connect to the Asterisk box. (hint:
the askozia article shows a method that might be compatible using an
SBC, which is why I
I have seen this interesting setup, but since we are also developing on
asterisk as we do on sipXecs, we would lose this option.
But it really shouldn't behave like this in my opion, since I can also imagine
using such a dial rule when using just sipXecs
Any thoughts on the bug/problem?
Can you blind transfer the call from a different User Agent (i.e. Polycom
not bria)? Are you sure the ITSp is sending the calls in via port 5080? Can
you call the auto attendant from the outside and transfer a call? If you
cant call the AA and transfer to an extension they are probably sending the
I think this would behave differently using asterisk as a gateway.
Have you considered this?
http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/ACD+solution+based+on+Askozia
Since it passes through a SBC it should not be required to make the
dialplan adjustments you are using.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:
Hi all,
We stumbled some time ago on a strange behavior in the dial plan regarding the
dial permissions.
The situation is as follows:
We have a few dial plan rules e.g.
- Mobile phones (required is the mobile call permission)
- Local numbers (required is the local call permis
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:28 PM, George Niculae wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:13 PM, George Niculae wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 29, 2012, De Soca wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> > upgraded to 4.7 and it appears that Call Rate Limit functionality is
>> not accessible.
>> > In 4.6 it was fo
