Hi, Yes you are correct Local Auckland has an area code of 9 and Tauranga has an area code of 7.
My ITSP allows you to have local numbers in each area and separate registrations for them, so you can register the Tauranga number as a gateway and the Auckland one as a separate gateway, although both registrations go to the same ITSP. What happens when I dial using that configuration though is the call gets routed out the gateway at the top of the list, so when I dial a Tauranga number (07) if the Auckland gateway is at the top of the bridge then the call goes through the ITSP as an Auckland number and doesnt take advantage of least cost routing, i.e. coming out on the Tauranga PSTN. Does that make sense and did it help? Cheers Grant ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Damian Krzeminski [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 2 April 2009 8:44 a.m. To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [sipx-users] SipXecs 3.11.12 Gateway vs Dialing Rulles Error/Bug Scott Lawrence wrote: > On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 07:58 +1300, Grant Lang wrote: >> Hi, >> Thanks for the reply. >> I have a suggestion, what if I added entries into the host file and created >> separate entries for the ITSP but pointed to the same ITSP? >> For example >> 202.67.162.1 a.itsp.com >> 202.67.162.1 b.itsp.com >> >> And then in each Gateway pointed the gateway to that host? >> >> I am not sure that would work because the fallbackrules.xml resolves the >> itsp domain name and puts an IP Address into the fallbackrules.xml file? >> >> Is there a possibility in either case that I could use an external rules >> file and if so how would I configure that? >> >> Thanks for your help. >> Grant >> >> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> >> <mappings xmlns="http://www.sipfoundry.org/sipX/schema/xml/fallback-00-00";> >> <hostMatch> >> <hostPattern>FQDN</hostPattern> >> <hostPattern>FQHN</hostPattern> >> <hostPattern>HostName</hostPattern> >> <hostPattern>10.1.2.11</hostPattern> >> <userMatch> >> <!--Local Auckland--> >> <description>Local Auckland dialing</description> >> <userPattern>909.</userPattern> >> <userPattern>99.</userPattern> >> <transform> >> <user>09{vdigits}</user> >> <host>202.180.76.166</host> >> <headerparams>route=10.1.2.11:5090</headerparams> >> <headerparams>expires=60</headerparams> >> <fieldparams>q=0.9</fieldparams> >> </transform> >> </userMatch> >> <userMatch> >> <!--Local Tauranga--> >> <description>Local Tauranga Dialing</description> >> <userPattern>907.</userPattern> >> <transform> >> <user>07{vdigits}</user> >> <host>202.180.76.166</host> >> <headerparams>route=10.1.2.11:5090</headerparams> >> <headerparams>expires=60</headerparams> >> <fieldparams>q=0.9</fieldparams> >> </transform> >> </userMatch> >> </hostMatch> >> </mappings> > > That looks correct. > > I think you should get call traces of calls that work and calls that > don't and take a snapshot. > > Don't jump to conclusions about what's happening > I does look OK: but I am not sure if I understand your setup. Looks like you have 2 rules "Local Auckland" and "Local Tauranga". They both send calls to the same physical gateway (202.180.76.166) through the same SBC (10.1.2.11:5090). The only difference between the 2 gateways are inserted prefixes. How is it different form what you expected? D. _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
