Asterisk
2006-Feb-22 15:02 UTC
[Asterisk-Users] Important: Application DIALPLAN STANDARD/GUIDELINES needs to be established.
Hello Asterisk community. We have a small User-group in Melbourne Australia. Recently I brought up the issue of STANDARDS for dialing Applications on a PBX. This generated some interest but also the fact little has been done on this topic. Below is a rundown of our THREAD. (start from bottom and go up) I myself, feel this to be an important issue. With Asterisk being so programmable, anything can be done. But should it. I would like to see some type of guide line or standard for extension layouts. We have not been able to find any reference to this. However, I hope the greater Asterisk community has, and if so, please share. Thanks, James ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, it comes down to personal preference I think, we use *1 for VM, and check CLID to take a caller directly to their VM box if it exists, vairous other internal functions from *1-9, other externally accessible functions from *10-19, conference rooms *20-39, etc... We've had no problems, but then we run a controlled set of end-user hardware. I suppose for a rollout with unkown/mixed hardware some research is required to determine the reserved functions. So, yes, two ideas might be to have a prefix (that is ensured never to be used in real number space!) for all functions, the other would be to have a number to dial that drops the caller into a context containing all features, possible even with voice prompts... Just idle thoughts... James Gardiner wrote: >Hello all, >Well, I would like to bring note to this topic as an important issue. >I am working on a AMP like application and want to standardize on >number sequences. *MAIL and *PARK sound like good ideas, however, they >are long button sequences. >Using * for applications, I feel, looks a bit shaky as its well used >with no formula by many companies for DND and other things. >So for example. *PARK is *7275. I am pretty sure *72 is some type of >feature on Cisco/sipura handsets so, the handset will upset these >sequence of numbers. > >I was looking at bringing it all to a standard or "1" application >number Park "17" >VM "15" direct "152000" for extension 2000. "15*2000" direct to >voicemail for 2000 Listen to MOH "1100" >Test dial in context "1000" >Etc. (There are many other options to consider.) > >Something like this; >Could the group members please make comment on what each of them sees >advantages and disadvantages of this idea. >Or any better ones. > >I am really open to suggestions. I really need to solidify the dial >plan and manual. > >Thanks, >James > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: voip-bounces@melbn.com [mailto:voip-bounces@melbn.com] On Behalf >Of jurgen >Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2006 11:09 AM >To: Melbn VOIP >Subject: Re: [Melbn-VOIP] Standards for Dialing applications???? > >When I was making some dial plan decisions several months ago, I didn't >see any real standards either, aside from some that telcos have used >(*69 for recent calls, etc). So I just went and made up my own, based >on words: *MAIL (*6245), *PARK, etc etc. They're easy for users to >remember, and as long as the phones have letters on them as well as >numbers, they're easy to dial. > > >On 22/02/2006, at 9:59 AM, James Gardiner wrote: > > > >>New Topic.. >> >>I am looking at writing some documentation for and users and also >>implementing different features in an Asterisk system. >> >> >> >>I have been looking around at different systems. >> >> >> >>Now the *NN appears to be common between manufactures. Is there a >>documented standard for this? >> >>Do they just make it up as they want? >> >> >> >>For example. There does not appear to be a standard for dialling >>Voicemail. >> >>Parking etc. >> >> >> >>I suppose, the simple question is. >> >> >> >>Is there one? >> >> >> >>If not, what is the consensus on dial codes for these options? >> >>For example what do well known vendors use. (Like cisco, etc) >> >> >> >>Thanks, >> >>James >> >> >>
James Gardiner
2006-Feb-24 06:15 UTC
[Asterisk-Users] Important: Application DIALPLAN STANDARD/GUIDELINES needs to be established.
Hello Asterisk community. We have a small User-group in Melbourne Australia. Recently I brought up the issue of STANDARDS for dialing Applications on a PBX. This generated some interest but also the fact little has been done on this topic. Below is a rundown of our THREAD. (start from bottom and go up) I myself, feel this to be an important issue. With Asterisk being so programmable, anything can be done. But should it. I would like to see some type of guide line or standard for extension layouts. We have not been able to find any reference to this. However, I hope the greater Asterisk community has, and if so, please share. Thanks, James ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, it comes down to personal preference I think, we use *1 for VM, and check CLID to take a caller directly to their VM box if it exists, vairous other internal functions from *1-9, other externally accessible functions from *10-19, conference rooms *20-39, etc... We've had no problems, but then we run a controlled set of end-user hardware. I suppose for a rollout with unkown/mixed hardware some research is required to determine the reserved functions. So, yes, two ideas might be to have a prefix (that is ensured never to be used in real number space!) for all functions, the other would be to have a number to dial that drops the caller into a context containing all features, possible even with voice prompts... Just idle thoughts... James Gardiner wrote: >Hello all, >Well, I would like to bring note to this topic as an important issue. >I am working on a AMP like application and want to standardize on >number sequences. *MAIL and *PARK sound like good ideas, however, they >are long button sequences. >Using * for applications, I feel, looks a bit shaky as its well used >with no formula by many companies for DND and other things. >So for example. *PARK is *7275. I am pretty sure *72 is some type of >feature on Cisco/sipura handsets so, the handset will upset these >sequence of numbers. > >I was looking at bringing it all to a standard or "1" application >number Park "17" >VM "15" direct "152000" for extension 2000. "15*2000" direct to >voicemail for 2000 Listen to MOH "1100" >Test dial in context "1000" >Etc. (There are many other options to consider.) > >Something like this; >Could the group members please make comment on what each of them sees >advantages and disadvantages of this idea. >Or any better ones. > >I am really open to suggestions. I really need to solidify the dial >plan and manual. > >Thanks, >James > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: voip-bounces@melbn.com [mailto:voip-bounces@melbn.com] On Behalf >Of jurgen >Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2006 11:09 AM >To: Melbn VOIP >Subject: Re: [Melbn-VOIP] Standards for Dialing applications???? > >When I was making some dial plan decisions several months ago, I didn't >see any real standards either, aside from some that telcos have used >(*69 for recent calls, etc). So I just went and made up my own, based >on words: *MAIL (*6245), *PARK, etc etc. They're easy for users to >remember, and as long as the phones have letters on them as well as >numbers, they're easy to dial. > > >On 22/02/2006, at 9:59 AM, James Gardiner wrote: > > > >>New Topic.. >> >>I am looking at writing some documentation for and users and also >>implementing different features in an Asterisk system. >> >> >> >>I have been looking around at different systems. >> >> >> >>Now the *NN appears to be common between manufactures. Is there a >>documented standard for this? >> >>Do they just make it up as they want? >> >> >> >>For example. There does not appear to be a standard for dialling >>Voicemail. >> >>Parking etc. >> >> >> >>I suppose, the simple question is. >> >> >> >>Is there one? >> >> >> >>If not, what is the consensus on dial codes for these options? >> >>For example what do well known vendors use. (Like cisco, etc) >> >> >> >>Thanks, >> >>James >> >> >>
Tomislav Parčina
2006-Feb-27 00:48 UTC
[Asterisk-Users] Re: Important: Application DIALPLAN STANDARD/GUIDELINES needs to be established.
In article <43FF06EE.2030900@crafted.com.au>, asterisk@crafted.com.au says...> > Hello Asterisk community. > We have a small User-group in Melbourne Australia. > Recently I brought up the issue of STANDARDS for dialing Applications on > a PBX. > > This generated some interest but also the fact little has been done on > this topic. > Below is a rundown of our THREAD. (start from bottom and go up) > > I myself, feel this to be an important issue. With Asterisk being so > programmable, anything can be done. But should it. I would like to see > some type of guide line or standard for extension layouts. > > We have not been able to find any reference to this. However, I hope > the greater Asterisk community has, and if so, please share. > > Thanks, > JamesHi James! I must say that I like your idea. It would be great that there is some recommendation for standard options of PBX. Maybe there is some RFC that is already dealing with this but I'm not familiar with that. Any further information's about this are more than welcome. -- Tomislav Parcina name.surname@email.t-com.hr