I think that if you put
exten = _X.,1,DIal,Zap
it'll improve the matching dramatically
Martin
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, John Todd wrote:
My synapses are rather fried after a long few days of debugging other
problems, so perhaps I'm being lazy in sending this to the general
list, but I can't think straight about it. Forgive me if there is an
overly obvious solution to this.
I have a list of phone numbers that are SIP extensions. I'd like to
dial them via SIP if ${EXTEN} is equal to one of those numbers. If
${EXTEN} is not equal to one of those numbers, I'd like to send the
call out to a PRI group, regardless of dialed sequence length or
pattern.
It seems I cannot do this with *'s pattern matching, due to the order
in which extensions are parsed, which seems to be least-specific to
most-specific. This causes all kinds of headaches when trying to use
wildcards, since wildcards are super-least-specific.
My desire would be to have the more specific matches done first, so
that if ${EXTEN} would be matched in an order that makes sense. I
understand why matching goes from least-to-most specific for analog
equipment, but it makes certain tasks impossible from a dialplan
point of view when I have the full number and I'm not waiting on a
user to finish typing the digits.
If presented with 12123669751 I would expect the match to happen and
the SIP extension to be dialed. It doesn't. It dials the Zap
extension.
[foo]
;
exten = _1212366975X,1,Dial(SIP/${EXTEN})
exten = _181772721[8-9]X,1,Dial(SIP/${EXTEN})
exten = _191481287[4-7]X,1,Dial(SIP/${EXTEN})
exten = _141550926[0-2]X,1,Dial(SIP/${EXTEN})
;
exten = _.,1,Dial(Zap/g1/${EXTEN})
;
How do I invert this match examination to make it go most- to
least-specific execution?
JT
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
