Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
[deleted comment]
How FusionPBX handles creation the extension "qweqwr" in your case?
Or if you create 5 extensions starting from 9999999?
Original comment by Vitaly.T...@gmail.com
on 29 Aug 2011 at 4:36
Sorry, you are correct. This is still a valid issue. Must have been somewhere
else I saw this working properly.
Original comment by bdfoste...@gmail.com
on 29 Aug 2011 at 4:43
This is not necessarily a problem, the Dialplan is setup to only handle 2-7
Digit Numeric extensions by default as a security measure, you can change the
dailplan where it handles extensions with names then numerics
I for example have extensions like sales and support, while a user might not be
able to dial these from a keypad, they are perfectly valid SIP URIs...
I really wish people would stop trying to limit themselves to numerics
Original comment by kr...@tollfreegateway.com
on 29 Aug 2011 at 4:47
OK, maybe it's not a problem for a single extension creation.
But I assume that this still can be a problem for bulk creation. Creation of
two extensions at once starting with sip:joe.bloggs@212.123.1.213 (just the
first one came from Google) will give you such a set:
sip:joe.bloggs@212.123.1.213
sip:joe.bloggs@212.123.1.214
This looks incorrect.
Original comment by Vitaly.T...@gmail.com
on 29 Aug 2011 at 4:55
bulk creation would be inappropriate to use for creating Alpha based extensions
unless its something like sales1 then you are creating sales1, sales2, sales3
etc...
keep in mind that the extension here is just the user part of the SIP URI (ex:
sip:USER@domain.com ) the domain/host part is driven by the configuration in
advanced -> system settings
Original comment by kr...@tollfreegateway.com
on 29 Aug 2011 at 5:18
"This is not necessarily a problem" - krice I agree with Ken on it isn't
necessary to restrict the number of digits an extension can use because it can
be adjusted according to need with few minor changes to the dialplan.
Original comment by markjcrane@gmail.com
on 30 Aug 2011 at 12:39
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
Vitaly.T...@gmail.com
on 29 Aug 2011 at 4:29