Help with SPA3102, gateways, and dial plans, pls

Hi All,

I've been able to configure my SPA 3102 in a way that if I press #2
(to select gateway 2, for instance) and dial the number, the call goes
through; however, if I dial the number directly I get an error message
saying the "number is not available.

My dial plan is as below

(*xx|xx.|[2-9]x.<:@gw2>|00x.<:@gw2>|1x.<:@gw0>|<#1:>xx.<:@gw1>|< #2:>xx.<:@gw2>|<#3:>xx.<:@gw3>|<#0:>xx.<:@gw0>)


with [2-9]x.<:@gw2> I'm trying to make all calls starting with
either 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, go through gateway 2. It's not
working

with 00x.<:@gw2> I'm tring to make all calls starting with 00 go
through gateway 2. I havent' tested yet

with 1x.<:@gw0> I'm trying to make all calls starting with 1, go
through PSTN. It's not working either.

The instructions after these should be obvious, and they are working.

Sugestions, please?

Thank you,
Jose

Jose wrote :
> Hi All,
>
> I've been able to configure my SPA 3102 in a way that if I press #2
> (to select gateway 2, for instance) and dial the number, the call goes
> through; however, if I dial the number directly I get an error message
> saying the "number is not available.
>
> My dial plan is as below
>
> (*xx|xx.|[2-9]x.<:@gw2>|00x.<:@gw2>|1x.<:@gw0>|<#1:>xx.<:@gw1>|< #2:>xx.<:@gw2>|<#3:>xx.<:@gw3>|<#0:>xx.<:@gw0>)
>
>
> with [2-9]x.<:@gw2> I'm trying to make all calls starting with
> either 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, go through gateway 2. It's not
> working
>
> with 00x.<:@gw2> I'm tring to make all calls starting with 00 go
> through gateway 2. I havent' tested yet
>
> with 1x.<:@gw0> I'm trying to make all calls starting with 1, go
> through PSTN. It's not working either.
>
> The instructions after these should be obvious, and they are working.
>
> Sugestions, please?
>
> Thank you,
> Jose

Try taking out the "xx." (the second entry) which is matching any
number you dial and trying to send the call via your Line 1 voip
provider.....at a guess

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:04:59 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
wrote:

>> My dial plan is as below
>>
>> (*xx|xx.|[2-9]x.<:@gw2>|00x.<:@gw2>|1x.<:@gw0>|<#1:>xx.<:@gw1>|< #2:>xx.<:@gw2>|<#3:>xx.<:@gw3>|<#0:>xx.<:@gw0>)


>Try taking out the "xx." (the second entry) which is matching any
>number you dial and trying to send the call via your Line 1 voip
>provider.....at a guess


Oh Lord, I though it was just saying that any dialed number should be
at least 3 digits long...

It's all working now. Thanks a lot!!

Best,
Jose

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:04:59 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
wrote:

>Try taking out the "xx." (the second entry) which is matching any
>number you dial and trying to send the call via your Line 1 voip
>provider.....at a guess


PS - Is Gateway 1 provider/account, or does it have to be, the same as
in Line 1??

Best,
Jose

Jose explained on 25/03/2008 :
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:04:59 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Try taking out the "xx." (the second entry) which is matching any
>> number you dial and trying to send the call via your Line 1 voip
>> provider.....at a guess
>
>
> PS - Is Gateway 1 provider/account, or does it have to be, the same as
> in Line 1??
>
> Best,
> Jose

Line 1 is distinctly different from gw1

Any string like xx. will send the call via your Line 1 provider, any
with @gw1 will send calls via gateway 1, etc.

Not all providers allow calls without registration....I'm not sure if
you can actually "register" the gw accounts.

BRIAAAN A? WHERE ARE YOU?

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:45:36 GMT, go.spam@somewhere.else (Jose) wrote:

>PS - Is Gateway 1 provider/account, or does it have to be, the same as
>in Line 1??


I've already found out the answer - by trial: NO.

Which means you can have 1 Voip provider for incoming calls, and 4
other Voip providers for outgoing calls - if you have the patience to
create the dial plans for all those, that is...

I'm happier having Voxalot as 1 of my "gateways", and creating my
routing rules there.

Best,
Jose

Jose formulated the question :
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:04:59 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>> My dial plan is as below
>>>
>>> (*xx|xx.|[2-9]x.<:@gw2>|00x.<:@gw2>|1x.<:@gw0>|<#1:>xx.<:@gw1>|< #2:>xx.<:@gw2>|<#3:>xx.<:@gw3>|<#0:>xx.<:@gw0>)
>
>
>> Try taking out the "xx." (the second entry) which is matching any
>> number you dial and trying to send the call via your Line 1 voip
>> provider.....at a guess
>
>
> Oh Lord, I though it was just saying that any dialed number should be
> at least 3 digits long...

No, the . after the xx really says any number of any length.


> It's all working now. Thanks a lot!!
>

:-) Glad you got there!

We've all been stumped by a dialplan at some time or another. Don't
believe anyone who claims otherwise.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:50:25 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
wrote:

>:-) Glad you got there!
>
>We've all been stumped by a dialplan at some time or another. Don't
>believe anyone who claims otherwise.


OK, I'm not so embarassed then ;-P

Is there any kind of priorities in a Linksys dial plan? For instance
if I had:

A) ([2-4]x.<:@gw1> | xx.) instead of

B) (xx. | [2-4]x.<:@gw1>)

would the numbers starting with 2, 3 and 4 go through gw1 (with dial
plan A)?


Best,
Jose

Jose formulated the question :
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:50:25 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> :-) Glad you got there!
>>
>> We've all been stumped by a dialplan at some time or another. Don't
>> believe anyone who claims otherwise.
>
>
> OK, I'm not so embarassed then ;-P
>
> Is there any kind of priorities in a Linksys dial plan? For instance
> if I had:
>
> A) ([2-4]x.<:@gw1> | xx.) instead of
>
> B) (xx. | [2-4]x.<:@gw1>)
>
> would the numbers starting with 2, 3 and 4 go through gw1 (with dial
> plan A)?

yes.....but there's still a lot of ambiguity - [2-4]x. or xx. would
match numbers like 2xxxxx. Are your numbers that begin 2-4 of a
specific length? If, for example they're 6 digit, use [2-4]xxxxxS0

What numbers are you trying to cater for?

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:23:03 GMT, go.spam@somewhere.else (Jose) wrote:

>Is there any kind of priorities in a Linksys dial plan? For instance
>if I had:
>
>A) ([2-4]x.<:@gw1> | xx.) instead of
>
>B) (xx. | [2-4]x.<:@gw1>)
>
>would the numbers starting with 2, 3 and 4 go through gw1 (with dial
>plan A)?


I suppose so :-P , as I tried entering the infamous xx. into my dial
plan again, this time at the very end of the dial plan instructions,
an was able to route calls through the gateways.

So, no I've come up with something diferent, like this:

(00447x.<:@gw2> | 0044x.)

In order of priority, calls to numbers starting with 00447 will go
through gw2; but numbers starting with 0044 followed by any other
number, 7 already being excluded by the previous rule, will go through
Line 1.

Am I correct? (I'll only be able to test it tomorrow morning :-S )

Best,
Jose

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:45:39 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
wrote:

>> A) ([2-4]x.<:@gw1> | xx.) instead of
>>
>> B) (xx. | [2-4]x.<:@gw1>)
>>
>> would the numbers starting with 2, 3 and 4 go through gw1 (with dial
>> plan A)?
>
>yes.....but there's still a lot of ambiguity - [2-4]x. or xx. would
>match numbers like 2xxxxx. Are your numbers that begin 2-4 of a
>specific length? If, for example they're 6 digit, use [2-4]xxxxxS0


My numbers starting (actually) from 2 to 9 - I entered 2-4 for
simplicity sake - all have 9 digits.

Yet, the instruction as above is working fine: I am being able to call
all the numbers I want to, starting with 2-9, with no problems.

Can you see any potential problem that I'm missing?

Best,
Jose

Jose was thinking very hard :
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:45:39 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>> A) ([2-4]x.<:@gw1> | xx.) instead of
>>>
>>> B) (xx. | [2-4]x.<:@gw1>)
>>>
>>> would the numbers starting with 2, 3 and 4 go through gw1 (with dial
>>> plan A)?
>>
>> yes.....but there's still a lot of ambiguity - [2-4]x. or xx. would
>> match numbers like 2xxxxx. Are your numbers that begin 2-4 of a
>> specific length? If, for example they're 6 digit, use [2-4]xxxxxS0
>
>
> My numbers starting (actually) from 2 to 9 - I entered 2-4 for
> simplicity sake - all have 9 digits.
>
> Yet, the instruction as above is working fine: I am being able to call
> all the numbers I want to, starting with 2-9, with no problems.
>
> Can you see any potential problem that I'm missing?

Not really, except for every call, you're going to have to wait for the
SPA to know you've finished dialling.....or you could dial a # at the
end of the phone number which would make it dial straight away......or
you could include the S0 command in the dial plan - this instructs the
SPA to dial immediately.

ie. I have this for local numbers [2-9]xxxxxS0 - my PBX takes care of
adding the area code; 0[1-9]xxxxxxxxxS0 covers 11 digit dialling

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:36:30 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
wrote:

>Not really, except for every call, you're going to have to wait for the
>SPA to know you've finished dialling.....

That might why I somethimes thing it's taking a while too long...
althought inm the ende it gets there


>or you could dial a # at the
>end of the phone number which would make it dial straight away......

Right! I think I can remember doing that, and find it easy. I won't
save in the phonebook entries though, as it probably would prevent the
phone matching inbound Caller IDs to phonebook entries :-(


>or
>you could include the S0 command in the dial plan - this instructs the
>SPA to dial immediately.
>
>ie. I have this for local numbers [2-9]xxxxxS0 - my PBX takes care of
>adding the area code; 0[1-9]xxxxxxxxxS0 covers 11 digit dialling

Let's see...
[2-4]x.SO<:@gw1> would make a faster dialing than just
[2-4]x.<:@gw1> ?? (I can't see how the ATA will know whern it's time
to apply the SO instruction...)

In the case of [2-4], I could replace it with [2-4]xxxxxxxx<:@gw1>,
because I know that all of these phone numbers are 9 digits long.

However, I'm not sure of the lenght of phone numbers in Japan, the UK
(landline and mobile), the USA, etc.
For that reason, (and to avoind having a dial plan longer still, I've
avoided entering the information about number of digits for the
destinations I keep calling


Best,
Jose

Jose has brought this to us :
> Let's see...
> [2-4]x.SO<:@gw1> would make a faster dialing than just
> [2-4]x.<:@gw1> ?? (I can't see how the ATA will know whern it's time
> to apply the SO instruction...)

Not quite.

You need to take the . out & specify the number length correctly -

[2-4]xxxxxxxxS0<:@gw1> for 9 digit numbers starting with 2,3 or 4.

Oh, and it's S0 not SO

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:33:01 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
wrote:

>Not quite.
>
>You need to take the . out & specify the number length correctly -
>
>[2-4]xxxxxxxxS0<:@gw1> for 9 digit numbers starting with 2,3 or 4.
>
>Oh, and it's S0 not SO

OK, I've taken the . out, and added the correct amount of x.

I tested it with the Xs, and without the SO: it took 4 seconds since
the phone stopped dialling untill I heard the other phone ring.

Then I added the SO to the Xs, and tested again: instead of 4 seconds,
it took 3 seconds untill I heard the called phone started ringing .

Then I went back and removed the Xs, and replaced the . , that is
[2-4]x. : it took SEVEN seconds until I heard the called phone
ringing. So, I'm staying with the Xs and the SO - 7 vs 3 seconds.

Thanks,
Jose

D'apres go.spam@somewhere.else (Jose), dans le forum uk.telecom.voip...

> However, I'm not sure of the lenght of phone numbers in Japan, the UK
> (landline and mobile), the USA, etc.

For NANP you can rely on 001xxxxxxxxxxS0

Remember it is S0 and not SO !

In message of Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Jose writes
>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:33:01 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Not quite.
>>
>>You need to take the . out & specify the number length correctly -
>>
>>[2-4]xxxxxxxxS0<:@gw1> for 9 digit numbers starting with 2,3 or 4.
>>
>>Oh, and it's S0 not SO
>
>OK, I've taken the . out, and added the correct amount of x.
>
>I tested it with the Xs, and without the SO: it took 4 seconds since
>the phone stopped dialling untill I heard the other phone ring.
>
>Then I added the SO to the Xs, and tested again: instead of 4 seconds,
>it took 3 seconds untill I heard the called phone started ringing .
>
>Then I went back and removed the Xs, and replaced the . , that is
>[2-4]x. : it took SEVEN seconds until I heard the called phone

>ringing.

>So, I'm staying with the Xs and the SO


You were told above that it is S0 not SO. It has to be S0 for it work
properly (that's 'ess' 'zero')

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:58:27 +0000, David Floyd <david@floyd.org.uk>
wrote:

>You were told above that it is S0 not SO. It has to be S0 for it work
>properly (that's 'ess' 'zero')

You're right, and somehow I missed it. probably because, for some
reason, I memorized that SO/0 meant Straight Out, therefore SO

So, from [2-4]x., taking 7 seconds for the called phone to ring, and
[2-4]xxxxxxxxSO taking 3, I'm now down to 2 seconds only, with
[2-4]xxxxxxxxS0 :-)

Thanks!
Jose

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:13:22 +0100, Marc Zirnheld
<Marc.Zirnheld@teaser.fr> wrote:

>For NANP you can rely on 001xxxxxxxxxxS0

Right, after the country code, from what I could gather from the
numbers I usually call numbers in the USA - probably Canada too - and
UK, all have 10 digits

The one number I call in Japan has 9 after the country code


>Remember it is S0 and not SO !

Yup, already corrected.

Thanks,
Jose