ha ha stupid auto correct. motel should be nortel.
what type of dial plan rule are you using? what type of gateway? On Sep 1, 2011 6:47 PM, "Tony Graziano" <[email protected]> wrote: > I have found them to be wrong on occasions... > > if the destination of 4495 is on the motel side, why are we dialling or > stripping digits instead if defining the destination a d sending it as is? > On Sep 1, 2011 6:40 PM, "Steve Beaudry" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; >> charset="utf-8" >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> Organization: SipXecs Forum >> In-Reply-To: <CAMgKNJWM52QdgtXvx_yptfpQe0qecu4+cMOnRepq= > [email protected]> >> X-FUDforum: 08063afcdd00a6e76393c5b9527381e8 <63025> >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Thanks Tony, >> >> Absolutely nothing would make me happier than to have >> someone point out a simple solution to this problem, where I >> had over complicated it. >> >> Exactly as you have suggested, I believed the problem was >> with a dialplan/route on the Patton gateway. I put in other >> dialplan entries on the patton, but it would not respect >> them (I put in an entry for the exact number I was dialling, >> 4495, and it simply ignored the route. In fact, through a >> fair bit of troubleshooting, I found that the route table >> wasn't being evaluated there... I opened a ticket with >> Patton engineers, and spoke to them back and forth for about >> a week, until we determined the problem. The route table on >> the Patton is not being evaluated, because the REFER-TO >> comes in already qualified for the >> mailto:'@voip.royalroads.ca' for which it has a route. Any >> URI ending in anything OTHER than it's IPAddress/hostname is >> sent to the SipXecs server. We (the Patton Engineers and I) >> tried using functions of the Patton gateway to strip the >> URI, but without success. >> >> Patton insists that the issue needs to be resolved before >> the REFER-TO reaches the gateway, and I have come to agree. >> >> >> Why, when I dial '4495', should the INVITE reach the >> gateway as '994495' (around which the routes on the gateway >> are developed), but when I TRANSFER a call to '4495', the >> REFER-TO reach the gateway as '4495'? The behaviour is >> inconsistent. Direct dialed calls are 'transformed' by the >> dialplan, but REFER-TO transfers are not. >> >> If sending the mailto:'[email protected]' were a >> valid configuration, why does the SipXecs server send the >> call as mailto:'[email protected]' when a call in initiated? >> I suggest that it is because the mailto:'[email protected]' >> format is CORRECT, but it is an oversight in the code that >> 'REFER-TO' packets are not updated per the same rules as >> 'INVITE' packets. >> >> Please understand, I do not wish to be argumentative, and >> am simply pointing out what I have already tried. I have >> already spent significant time with Patton support trying to >> sort out the issue there, before referring the issue here. >> >> Cheers, and VERY respectfully, >> >> ...Steve... >> _______________________________________________ >> sipx-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
