Scott wrote: > On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 19:19 -0400, Andy Spitzer wrote: > > Woof! > > > > >> I [Damian] actually quite like "Site to Site". Federated > system is > > >> less graphic > > > > > > +1 on Site to Site > > > > I like site-to-site as well, but isn't it more correctly: > > > > sipXecs to sipXecs > > There's really nothing sipXecs specific about what's > happening with this rule type - it's just used for an all-SIP > call (which is presumably toll-free and therefor not worth > the problems associated with having a permission on it).
Looking at the XCF-3635 description, this will be nearly the same as the "Custom" type, except that the "Required Permissions" section will be disabled. It doesn't need to be an all-SIP call, though typically it would be. How about calling this a "Branch" dial rule type? In the specific case of an all-SIP branch call, is it true that you'll need to pair this rule with an "Unmanaged gateway" type entry for the site to be dialed? (And not a "SIP trunk" type gateway, as that's for an ITSP account.) If so, then would this use case also benefit from a "Branch" gateway type? It could be a clone of the "Unmanaged gateway" type, with perhaps condensed Address and Location help text. Unless... maybe there is ambiguity about the term "branch"? To me a branch is simply a remote site, regardless of whether there is a sipXecs server at that site (and whether said sipXecs server is part of a HA sipXecs cluster.) I expect a superadmin creating a dial rule and gateway would understand that the target must be a distinct sipXecs deployment. If that is a reasonable expectation, then I'm sticking with my suggestion of "Branch" for dial rule the names. -Paul [email protected] _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
