News:

On Tuesday September 6th the forum will be down for maintenance from 9:30 PM to 11:59 PM PDT

Main Menu

Phone Routing Rule Syntax confusion

Started by Caleb34, June 05, 2013, 11:17:06 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Caleb34

Hi, I'm a newbie with a obihai 110. I'm trying to understand call routing rules and digimaps. I have gone through the admin procedures and played with various examples on my 110.

I hate asking "dumb" questions and would rather work things out for myself, but some things don't quite make sense to me.  Take these examples:

On page 177 of the OBI Device Administration Guide, it gives an example (in italics) of a rule:

2) {(14081223330|15103313456):aa},{(1800xx.|1888xx.):},{ph}
It says: Ring both PHONE port and AA for calls coming from 1 4408 122 3330 or 1 510 331 3456, block all 800, 888, and anonymous calls, and ring the PHONE port for all other calls


I don't quite understand how the first two numbers 14081223330 and 15103313456 will ring both AA and phone port. As I read it, it will ring AA only.

the next example seems to support my understanding.  The first rule is identical (except for different numbers) as the first rule in example 2.

3) {(x.4081113333|x.4152224444):aa},{ph}
It says: Ring the AA for calls coming from any number that ends with 408 111 3333 or 415 222 4444, and ring the PHONE port for all other calls. Be sure to include the enclosing parentheses in this example since "x." is a digit map specific syntax.



Am I missing something? Any enlightenment would be very welcome. Thanks


Shale

Quote from: Caleb34 on June 05, 2013, 11:17:06 AM
Hi, I'm a newbie with a obihai 110. I'm trying to understand call routing rules and digimaps. I have gone through the admin procedures and played with various examples on my 110.

I hate asking "dumb" questions and would rather work things out for myself, but some things don't quite make sense to me.  Take these examples:

On page 177 of the OBI Device Administration Guide, it gives an example (in italics) of a rule:

2) {(14081223330|15103313456):aa},{(1800xx.|1888xx.):},{ph}
It says: Ring both PHONE port and AA for calls coming from 1 4408 122 3330 or 1 510 331 3456, block all 800, 888, and anonymous calls, and ring the PHONE port for all other calls

I interpret  that by "and ring the PHONE port for all other calls" they are referring to other calls as those which are neither  coming from 1 4408 122 3330 nor 1 510 331 3456, are neither 1800 nor 1888 calls, and are also are not anonymous . The 1 4408 122 3330 or 1 510 331 3456 calls will only go to AA. I don't know how the anonymous calls get handled by this, but others will.


Quote from: Caleb34
I don't quite understand how the first two numbers 14081223330 and 15103313456 will ring both AA and phone port. As I read it, it will ring AA only.



the next example seems to support my understanding.  The first rule is identical (except for different numbers) as the first rule in example 2.

3) {(x.4081113333|x.4152224444):aa},{ph}
It says: Ring the AA for calls coming from any number that ends with 408 111 3333 or 415 222 4444, and ring the PHONE port for all other calls. Be sure to include the enclosing parentheses in this example since "x." is a digit map specific syntax.



Am I missing something? Any enlightenment would be very welcome. Thanks

I think that your interpretation of this one is OK, and the example is similar-- except it also adds the x. that makes a leading 1 or other country code to be ignored for this comparison.

ianobi

Caleb34,

This has caused confusion before! Here are my comments from the last time this was raised in this forum:

From the AdminGude:

Quote2) {(14081223330|15103313456):aa},{(1800xx.|1888xx.):},{ph}
It says: Ring both PHONE port and AA for calls coming from 1 408 122 3330 or 1 510 331 3456, block all 800, 888, and anonymous calls, and ring the PHONE port for all other calls

Nearly all wrong! It really says:
Ring AA for calls coming from 1 408 122 3330 or 1 510 331 3456, block all 1800 and 1888 calls, and ring the PHONE port for all other calls including anonymous.

The rest of that section looks right, so it's odd that whoever wrote that got it so wrong. Obihai need to get a good proof reader!