On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 12:01 +0200, Alberto wrote:
> Hi,
> tested XX-5623 in 4.0.1-015694 with Internet calling not enabled.
> I could perfectly complete a call to "[email protected]" both using 
> a Snom 320 and a Cisco 7960.
> Again I could complete the call from both phone simply pressing redial 
> from my missed call list, where the missed call came from the outside 
> via sipxbridge.
> 
> The issue is resolved when I'm calling "[email protected]". The only 
> exception I had is placing such call with Bria Pro 2.5. I receive a 407 
> Proxy Authentication Required. I suspect this to be a Bria issue. What 
> do you think? Should I open a new issue for further investigation?

Is the 407 coming from sipXproxy?  The phone should have the credentials
to respond to that challenge... it's certainly not the same issue.

> After a deeper testing with my ITSP I found another range of call 
> failing when pressing the redial. IP to IP incoming calls are recorded 
> as "[email protected]" and they now work fine. PSTN to IP calls are 
> recorded as "num...@ipaddress" where ipAddress is a ITSP host, I guess 
> one of their PSTN gateway. Again should I open an issue?

There's not going to be much we can reasonably do about that one in the
short term.  Is the ITSP not consistent in how they send calls?

> Last thought: when recalling "[email protected]" we re-route a call 
> to the originator ITSP account. If just the "number" part match some 
> dial rule are we following that rule or simply routing it back the way 
> it came? Suppose I'd like to route calls matching my dial plan (Simple 
> example "number" of "[email protected]" is a mobile and I want to 
> use a pstn gateway where I get better rates) would not be simple to have 
> a configurable switch manipulating the incoming From URI like 
> "[email protected]" and "num...@ipaddress" to simply "number" 
> striping the "@.." part?

That's not really a legal thing to do.  The userpart (left of the '@')
in a SIP URI can only be interpreted at the domain on the right hand
side.  Just because it 'looks like' a phone number doesn't mean that it
is, or that the number would work in the same way from somewhere else.

In theory, a 'tel' scheme URL wouldn't have this problem, but at present
sipXecs doesn't support it.


_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev

Reply via email to