I think this would behave differently using asterisk as a gateway.

Have you considered this?
http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/ACD+solution+based+on+Askozia

Since it passes through a SBC it should not be required to make the
dialplan adjustments you are using.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Henry Dogger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> We stumbled some time ago on a strange behavior in the dial plan regarding
> the dial permissions.
>
> The situation is as follows:
>
>
>
> We have a few dial plan rules e.g.
>
> -          Mobile phones (required is the mobile call permission)
>
> -          Local numbers (required is the local call permission)
>
> -          International (required is the international call permission)
>
>
>
> This all works as aspected, a user without the mobile call permission is not
> allowed to call mobile phones.
>
> But part of our normal setup is a SIP connection between a sipXecs and a
> Asterisk, calls are being routed from asterisk to sipXecs and the other way
> around. (the reason why we use an Asterisk is because of the queue
> functionality, ACD in sipXecs is not satisfying and also openACD is still
> not good enough for us.)
>
> Since registering the asterisk as a user on sipXecs is a problem we decided
> to create a dial rule in the dial plan with a (to all users on the system)
> unknown prefix (e.g. 666).
>
> So the custom dial rule we created is 666 and 10 digits will result in a
> dial of the last 10 digits on the gateways configured for outbound calls.
>
> The problems we get with this dial rule are:
>
> -          The rule has to be on top of the other outbound dial rules
> (Mobile, Local and International in this example) to work, otherwise sipXecs
> responds with a unauthorized to Asterisk.
>
> -          When this rule is active, all other outbound dial rules (Mobile,
> Local and International in this example) can be called by all users, even
> the users without the desired call permissions, so somehow this rule breaks
> the entire permissions system….
>
>
>
> I am curious if this is normal behavior, or did we stumble upon a bug?
>
> We are currently running on 4.4 updated till patch 16.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Henry Dogger
>
> Telecats BV
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipx-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: 434.984.8430
sip: [email protected]
Fax: 434.465.6833
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Linked-In Profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4
Ask about our Internet Fax services!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Using or developing for sipXecs from SIPFoundry? Ask me about sipX-CoLab 2013!

-- 
LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk:
Telephone: 434.984.8426
sip: [email protected]

Helpdesk Customers: http://myhelp.myitdepartment.net
Blog: http://blog.myitdepartment.net
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

Reply via email to