Scott wrote: > > Why isn't the same true of the mappingrules > (transformation-only) redirector? > > Because it's not designed that way :-) > > > i.e. You have a conference bridge 6480, and a 6XXX->XXX > > transformation-only rule. An INVITE to 6480 will result in > a Contact > > for the conference bridge, but also 480? Surely a User 480 > would not > > also receive an INVITE? > > Yes, both would get that call - since the conference bridge > answers right away, it would probably win the resulting race.
I doubt admins expect transformation-only dial plan rules to cause simring with internal extensions. Certainly not based on the UI we are currently presenting. Are there any plausible use cases where this is required? If not, then should we consider changing mappingrules redirectors so that they too only return a Contact when no previous redirector has added one. -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/
