On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Kumaran < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/2/2012 1:19 PM, George Niculae wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Kumaran < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 11/2/2012 12:56 PM, George Niculae wrote >> >> I checked in 4.6 George...No issues with other extension..Only user >> extension is having issue...If VM or phone is enabled then Registrar >> consider this as a valid internal Extension so call will directed >> particular user..But if user doesn't have phone and vm then registrar not >> considering as internal extension and process it through local dial plan >> because it has permission for allow calls with any number... >> >> > When you say "user 201 without phone " this means without phone > registered? > > George > > Yes George...No phone assigned to user 201... > Please bare with me - there's a difference between no phone assigned to user 201 (which could mean no phone configured in sipXconfig) and no phone registered for that user (you can register phones that are not managed by sipxecs). So if no phone registered, where is this call established in step 5 of your scenario? 5.user 200 call established with FXO Thanks George
_______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/
