Scott, thanks for your answer. I set up a site-to-site dialplan rule for the exact match on 298 going through my gateway but sipX still wants an authentication if 298 is dialed. When removing the unmanaged GW from another dialing rule (matching "0" as first digit) the 298 can be dialed without authentication.
I will try to reproduce this on SipX 4.2. If I see there the same behaviour I will open a Ticket for this. René 2010/5/7 Scott Lawrence <[email protected]> > On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 12:35 +0200, Rene Pankratz wrote: > > Hello, > > I have a PSTN GW and another unmanaged GW connected to the SipX > > (4.0.4). > > > > Incoming calls from PSTN that match an extension (e.g exact match on > > ext "298") shall be routed to the other unmanaged GW. > > But unfortunately the SipX wants the PSTN GW to be authenticated and > > sends a 407. > > > > No permission is configured to be needed in the dialing rule for the > > second unmanaged GW. Of course incoming calls ID also do not match an > > existing user on SipX. > > > > When I disble the dialing Rule I get a 404 not found. So the dialing > > rule is the one that matches. > > > > I have another dialing rule in my diaplan that needs permissions and > > also uses the unmanaged GW. Is it not possible to route calls to > > specific extensions without a permission through the GW when another > > dialing rule (with permissions) also uses the GW? > > I don't remember whether or not 4.0.4 has the site-to-site dial plan > type - if not, upgrade to 4.2.0 (actually, you should just upgrade > anyway). > > Try setting up the plan that does not need a permission as a > site-to-site plan. > > (there is a problem with the evaluation of permissions on dial plans > that the site-to-site plan works around) > >
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
