(reposted with correct subject line, I think messing up the subject
line last time prevented my question from being read. Cheers :)

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Jesse Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Letting a carrier use you as a carrier seems like quite a bad idea 
>> generally..
>
> I think I would agree. :)
>
>
>>
>> _NXXNXXXXXX => Dial(SIP/${EXTEN}@upstream,120); // numbers not handled here 
>> get routed upstream....
>> in the 'local' context instead of the other one?....
>>
>
> So here is where the finer points of Asterisk pattern matching must
> come into play.
>
> All of the customer DID's match the pattern _NXXNXXXXXX. If we put
> that pattern in the local context, then wouldn't that mean that calls
> from a local customer to another local customer would match the
> _NXXNXXXXXX pattern before even trying to match against the specific
> patterns in the "clients" context? We need to be able to route
> local-to-local calls without using two trunks to go back and forth
> through the upstream provider.
>
> Thank you for your input. I know this is a problem most operators can
> get past, so there's got to be just something not lining up quite
> right in my mental model. :)
>
> - - Jesse
>

--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
               http://www.asterisk.org/hello

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Reply via email to