Would it take a massive rewrite to improve the way permissions are handled or is it something that just isn't high on the priority list?
For now I'll work with FQDNs to get sipX to do what I want it to do. On 06/10/2010 08:35 AM, JOLY, ROBERT (ROBERT) wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Josh Patten >> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 4:51 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [sipx-users] Use one IP address for multiple >> gateways in sipX? >> >> I remember a while back when someone tried to set up multiple >> unmanaged gateways with the same IP address in sipX it didn't >> work correctly or permissions didn't work properly (I don't >> remember what the problem was exactly I just remember it didn't work) >> >> I have run into a call routing situation where, due to the way sipX >> (poorly) handles permissions on dial plans, I need to either >> set multiple IP addresses on my FXO gateway or create >> multiple unmanaged gateways pointing to the same IP within >> sipX with different permissions on each. I haven't been able >> to make my audiocodes gateway assume multiple IP addresses so >> I'm hoping that the issue with multiple gateways pointing to >> the same IP address has been fixed. Can someone point me in >> the right direction? >> > I acknbowledge that the way permissions are applied to dialplans could be > improved... Basically, the sipXecs determines which permissions to apply by > evaluating the output of the dialplan transformation but if two dialplans are > setup to produce identical outputs, the authorization stage responsible for > checking permissions cannot tell the two dialplans appart and therefore > cannot apply the right permission checks in many cases. This is confusing but > here is an example. If I have two dialplans: > > DP #1: > REQUIRES: LongDistance perm > INPUT: 9 followed by "any digits"; > OUTPUT: send "any digits" to gateway XYZ > > DP #2: > REQUIRES: LocalDialing perm > INPUT: 6 followed by "any digits"; > OUTPUT: send "any digits" to gateway XYZ > > Remember that the permissions are applied based on the output of a dialplan > but in this case DP1 and DP2 cannot be told appart because they produce the > exact same output, i.e. "send "any digits" to gateway XYZ". That means that > the permission requirements of DP1 are always applied for calls of "any > digits to gateway XYZ". > > So, the work around is to make the two dialplans' outputs unambiguous. When > possible, a way to do this is to have the two dialplans match different dial > string lengths. For example, the following would yield the unambiguous > outputs and proper permissions could ba applied: > DP #1: > REQUIRES: LongDistance perm > INPUT: 9 followed by "10 digits"; > OUTPUT: send "any digits" to gateway XYZ > > DP #2: > REQUIRES: LocalDialing perm > INPUT: 6 followed by "7 digits"; > OUTPUT: send "any digits" to gateway XYZ > > I think that refering to the gateway by IP address in one DP and by its FQDN > in another way to make DP outputs unambiguous but I haven't tried it. > > Another way would the add a dummy prefix to the DP output that the gateway is > configured to throw out. You could then make DP outputs unamnbiguous by > preprending unique prefixes in each DP output. _______________________________________________ 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/
