Scott wrote: > > How do so Site-to-Site rules work when the calling site is > a TLS Peer? > > Wasn't TLS Peers added in order to allow remote sites to use dial > > rules that require permissions? > > All dialing rules control what happens with outbound requests. > > The TLS Peer functionality [...] adds permissions to an inbound call. > Those permissions enable that call to then have permissions > needed for dial plans that require them.
Exactly. The inbound call becomes an outbound call, via a dial rule that requires the permissions. But a Site-to-Site dial rule by definition has no required permissions. Therefore, there is no point in configuring a remote site with TLS Peer if you're going to use a Site-to-Site dial rule. I'm going to play devil's advocate here... "Site-to-Site" isn't a good name for this dial rule type, since it's useless in the TLS Peer remote site scenario. A more accurate name would be "Permission-less Custom". :) Having calls fail because the caller lacks the required permissions is not a Site-to-Site specific problem. Maybe we should enhance CDR to show when a call fails because of permissions? Bonus points if it also displays which permission(s) were lacking. But I think a permission-less version of the Custom dial plan type (by whatever name) adds complexity without value. I propose that we remove it as part of XX-7822. -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 sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
