Sending "800" numbers to POTS?

Discussion in 'UK VOIP' started by (PeteCresswell), Feb 17, 2011.

  1. The easy part would seem to be:

    1800xxxxxxx<:mad:gw0>|

    But, to be consistent with prepending "1" to 10-digit numbers
    as in:

    <1>[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxxS0|

    I'd like to combine the two, so that if somebody just
    dials "800-123-4567", the dial plan will prepend a "1"
    and rout it to POTS.


    Converting literally, I get:

    <1>800800xxxxxxx<:mad:gw0>|

    But that looks wrong bc there is nothing to delimit the "look
    for" string and the "convert to" string.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Feb 17, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    "(PeteCresswell)" <> writes:
    > The easy part would seem to be:
    >
    > 1800xxxxxxx<:mad:gw0>|
    >
    > But, to be consistent with prepending "1" to 10-digit numbers
    > as in:
    >
    > <1>[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxxS0|
    >
    > I'd like to combine the two, so that if somebody just
    > dials "800-123-4567", the dial plan will prepend a "1"
    > and rout it to POTS.
    >
    >
    > Converting literally, I get:
    >
    > <1>800800xxxxxxx<:mad:gw0>|
    >
    > But that looks wrong bc there is nothing to delimit the "look
    > for" string and the "convert to" string.


    I think you have to do it with two entries:

    <800:1800>xxxxxxxS0<:mad:gw0>|1800xxxxxxxS0<:mad:gw0>

    but I haven't tried these.

    Isn't 888 also free in the US?
    In that case, you'll need another two entries for 888

    --
    Andrew Gabriel
    [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
     
    Andrew Gabriel, Feb 18, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Per (PeteCresswell):
    >But that looks wrong bc there is nothing to delimit the "look
    >for" string and the "convert to" string.


    FWIW, this seems tb the way to do it:
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    (
    911<:mad:gw0>S0 | Force "911" to POTS, dialing
    immediately

    1800xxxxxxx<:mad:gw0>S0 | Immeditate dial to POTS for 1-800
    numbers
    <:1>800xxxxxxx<:mad:gw0>S0 | Append "1" to 10-digit 800 calls and
    send them out on POTS

    1xxx[2-9]xxxxxxS0 | Immediate dial for normal "1 + 10
    digits" numbers
    <1>[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxxS0 | If number is only 10 digits, prefix
    it with "1" and dial immediately
    011[2-9]x. Handle overseas dialing
    )
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    But still a question:

    How come both of these work, even though
    there is a colon missing in the second one?

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    <:1>800xxxxxxx<:mad:gw0>S0 | Append "1" to 10-digit 800 cals and
    send them out on POTS

    <1>[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxxS0 | If number is only 10 digits, prefix
    it with "1" and dial immediately
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Or am I just wishing that both of them work (I have not figured
    out yet how to tell whether the first one is working or just
    silently failing and the 800 number is getting processed by
    <1>[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxxS0)
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Feb 18, 2011
    #3
  4. Per Andrew Gabriel:
    > <800:1800>xxxxxxxS0<:mad:gw0>


    Thanks!... after reading your post, the conversion syntax has
    finally dawned on me:

    - Conversion enclosed in carrots
    - Value to scan for on left
    - Colon as delim
    - Value to replaced scanned value on right


    But, looking at other expressions that seem to work, it seems
    like there is more than one syntax for conversions.

    Have I got that right?
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Feb 18, 2011
    #4
  5. In article <>,
    "(PeteCresswell)" <> writes:
    > Per Andrew Gabriel:
    >> <800:1800>xxxxxxxS0<:mad:gw0>

    >
    > Thanks!... after reading your post, the conversion syntax has
    > finally dawned on me:
    >
    > - Conversion enclosed in carrots
    > - Value to scan for on left
    > - Colon as delim
    > - Value to replaced scanned value on right


    Yes.

    > But, looking at other expressions that seem to work, it seems
    > like there is more than one syntax for conversions.


    I think it's always as above.

    This dialplan language is defined somewhere (I found it once, but
    I've forgotten where) and it's got a name, but I can't remember
    that either (it's several years since I played with it).
    Although it might look quite simple, it's actually very powerful.
    AFAIK, it wasn't invented by Sipura - they just used it, although
    the parts like @gw0 are obviously Sipura additions.

    --
    Andrew Gabriel
    [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
     
    Andrew Gabriel, Feb 18, 2011
    #5
  6. In article <>,
    "(PeteCresswell)" <> writes:
    > Per (PeteCresswell):
    >>But that looks wrong bc there is nothing to delimit the "look
    >>for" string and the "convert to" string.

    >
    > FWIW, this seems tb the way to do it:
    > -----------------------------------------------------------
    > (
    > 911<:mad:gw0>S0 | Force "911" to POTS, dialing
    > immediately


    Ideally, you need to test this.
    If there's some other short number you can dial on POTS which
    is less serious than the police turning up, you could temporarily
    swap that in and try it.

    > 1800xxxxxxx<:mad:gw0>S0 | Immeditate dial to POTS for 1-800
    > numbers
    > <:1>800xxxxxxx<:mad:gw0>S0 | Append "1" to 10-digit 800 calls and
    > send them out on POTS
    >
    > 1xxx[2-9]xxxxxxS0 | Immediate dial for normal "1 + 10
    > digits" numbers
    > <1>[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxxS0 | If number is only 10 digits, prefix
    > it with "1" and dial immediately
    > 011[2-9]x. Handle overseas dialing
    > )
    > -----------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > But still a question:
    >
    > How come both of these work, even though
    > there is a colon missing in the second one?


    I don't know what <1> means (which doesn't mean it's invalid,
    just that I don't know).

    > ---------------------------------------------------------------
    > <:1>800xxxxxxx<:mad:gw0>S0 | Append "1" to 10-digit 800 cals and
    > send them out on POTS
    >
    > <1>[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxxS0 | If number is only 10 digits, prefix
    > it with "1" and dial immediately
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Or am I just wishing that both of them work (I have not figured
    > out yet how to tell whether the first one is working or just
    > silently failing and the 800 number is getting processed by
    > <1>[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxxS0)


    Temporarily remove the <1>[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxxS0 entry, and see
    if it still works.

    --
    Andrew Gabriel
    [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
     
    Andrew Gabriel, Feb 18, 2011
    #6
  7. (PeteCresswell)

    Graham. Guest

    "Andrew Gabriel" <> wrote in message news:ijmgc4$26a$-september.org...
    > In article <>,
    > "(PeteCresswell)" <> writes:
    >> Per (PeteCresswell):
    >>>But that looks wrong bc there is nothing to delimit the "look
    >>>for" string and the "convert to" string.

    >>
    >> FWIW, this seems tb the way to do it:
    >> -----------------------------------------------------------
    >> (
    >> 911<:mad:gw0>S0 | Force "911" to POTS, dialing
    >> immediately

    >
    > Ideally, you need to test this.
    > If there's some other short number you can dial on POTS which
    > is less serious than the police turning up, you could temporarily
    > swap that in and try it.
    >
    >> 1800xxxxxxx<:mad:gw0>S0 | Immeditate dial to POTS for 1-800
    >> numbers
    >> <:1>800xxxxxxx<:mad:gw0>S0 | Append "1" to 10-digit 800 calls and
    >> send them out on POTS
    >>
    >> 1xxx[2-9]xxxxxxS0 | Immediate dial for normal "1 + 10
    >> digits" numbers
    >> <1>[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxxS0 | If number is only 10 digits, prefix
    >> it with "1" and dial immediately
    >> 011[2-9]x. Handle overseas dialing
    >> )
    >> -----------------------------------------------------------
    >>
    >> But still a question:
    >>
    >> How come both of these work, even though
    >> there is a colon missing in the second one?

    >
    > I don't know what <1> means (which doesn't mean it's invalid,
    > just that I don't know).
    >
    >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
    >> <:1>800xxxxxxx<:mad:gw0>S0 | Append "1" to 10-digit 800 cals and
    >> send them out on POTS
    >>
    >> <1>[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxxS0 | If number is only 10 digits, prefix
    >> it with "1" and dial immediately
    >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
    >>
    >> Or am I just wishing that both of them work (I have not figured
    >> out yet how to tell whether the first one is working or just
    >> silently failing and the 800 number is getting processed by
    >> <1>[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxxS0)

    >
    > Temporarily remove the <1>[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxxS0 entry, and see
    > if it still works.
    >
    > --
    > Andrew Gabriel
    > [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]


    I have a little DTMF digit grabber I can clip across a line to display what is being sent out.
    With a 999/112 test, I would use a parallel POT to break dialtone with a suitable digit, to ensure the call fails, not 9 obviously,
    and 1 might be undesirable in areas that have access to the NHS 111 service. (I bet that number gets plenty of phantom calls from
    the wind
    blowing, and shorting dangling pairs, it's well known that 112 suffers from this).

    --
    Graham.

    %Profound_observation%
     
    Graham., Feb 18, 2011
    #7
  8. Per Graham.:
    >I have a little DTMF digit grabber I can clip across a line to display what is being sent out.
    >With a 999/112 test, I would use a parallel POT to break dialtone with a suitable digit, to ensure the call fails, not 9 obviously,
    >and 1 might be undesirable in areas that have access to the NHS 111 service. (I bet that number gets plenty of phantom calls from
    >the wind
    >blowing, and shorting dangling pairs, it's well known that 112 suffers from this).


    My 911 test currently consists of changing "911" to "611" - which
    connects to a very convenient "We're no longer here and you
    should look there...." message.

    I think I'm in the market for a "digit grabber".

    That plus a little "faux SIP" computer app that I can point the
    gateway at instead of my provider - and which displays what it
    gets sent....

    With those two plus a set of tests to go through each time I
    update the dial plan I think I'd feel a lot more comfortable -
    not to mention less likely to make so many
    "I-don't-have-a-clue-please-help" posts.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Feb 19, 2011
    #8
  9. Per (PeteCresswell):
    >I think I'm in the market for a "digit grabber".


    I seem to have found both the tool in WireShark with a filter.

    For the benefit of any other noobs climbing the same curve, here
    is what I am doing to test my dial plans:

    =============================================================
    01) Download and install WireShark

    02) In the 3102's web interface, select "Admin" and "Advanced"
    from the small blue type in the upper right.

    03) Set Line 1 | SIP Debug Option: to "Full"

    04) Set System | Debug Server to the local IP address of
    the PC that you will be running WireShark on.

    05) Fire up WireShark

    06) (Probably...) observe that packets are now starting to
    appear in WireShark's main window.

    07) Choose Analyze | Display Filters. A dialog will pop.

    08) Make up a "Filter Name"

    09) Populate "Filter String" with the expression:

    syslog.msg contains "INVITE sip:"

    10) Click "Apply"

    11) Click "OK"

    12) Observe that WireShark's main window has become empty
    of packets.

    13) Pick up your phone and make a VOIP call. It does not have
    to be to a working number.

    14) Observe that WireShark's main window, after a brief pause,
    is now showing the "INVITE" packet for that call - which
    contains the actual number put out by the gateway.

    * If the number were to go out to your SIP provider, the
    "Info" column would say something like:

    INVITE sip:....

    * If, OTOH, the number were to go out on POTS, the "Info"
    column would say something like:

    INVITE sip:18882345678@127.0.0.1:5061
    =============================================================

    The only joker in this little deck is that WireShark can only
    handle so many packets without running out of memory.

    My scheme works as far as only showing the desired packets, but
    WireShark's total packets keep on incrementing and eventually it
    terminates itself gracefully with nice little explanatory
    message.

    I've got a post in the WireShark forum and I'm hoping to hear
    that it's just something dumb I'm doing vis-a-vis the manner of
    applying the filter and that there is a way to tell WireShark to
    not even save packets that don't meet the filter's criteria.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Feb 22, 2011
    #9
  10. (PeteCresswell)

    alexd Guest

    Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.voip Job Justification Hearings,
    (PeteCresswell) chose the tried and tested strategy of:

    > My scheme works as far as only showing the desired packets, but
    > WireShark's total packets keep on incrementing and eventually it
    > terminates itself gracefully with nice little explanatory
    > message.


    What you want is the Capture Filter in Wireshark, which does what you might
    think it does.

    Capture Options > Capture Filter > "port syslog"

    This will only capture port 514/udp.

    To be honest I'd never thought of using Wireshark as a syslog server, but it
    sounds like it just about works for you, so why not!

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    18:33:39 up 3 days, 21:13, 7 users, load average: 0.14, 0.10, 0.08
    "I am utterly appalled at how I have been treated like a criminal"
    -- Andrew Crossley, ACS:Law, 13 August 2010
     
    alexd, Feb 22, 2011
    #10
  11. Per alexd:
    >What you want is the Capture Filter in Wireshark, which does what you might
    >think it does.
    >
    >Capture Options > Capture Filter > "port syslog"
    >
    >This will only capture port 514/udp.
    >
    >To be honest I'd never thought of using Wireshark as a syslog server, but it
    >sounds like it just about works for you, so why not!


    I tried the capture filter thing over-and-over.... but no joy.

    I get the distinction between capture and display filters, but
    every time I tried, wound up with a display and not a capture
    filter.

    My workaround has been to use DumpCap.exe - which comes with
    WireShark. DumpCap creates a .pcap file, same as WireShark; and
    WireShark can read the file.

    There seem tb syntax limitations on one type of filter over the
    other, and it looks like searching for a substring isn't in the
    cards capture-wise.

    So I feed DumpCap a capture filter based in the IP of the gateway
    and then feed WireShark a display filter that carves down the
    gateway's packets.

    To Wit:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    :* =======================================================================
    :* PURPOSE: To capture network traffic from VOIP adapter and then show
    :* same using WireShark to open the capture file.
    :* =======================================================================

    @ECHO OFF

    ECHO .
    ECHO Ctl-C, then reply "N" to stop and view
    ECHO .

    C:
    CD "C:\Program Files\WireShark

    SET DumpLoc=\\NAS\Temp\DumpCap.pcap

    dumpcap.exe -w %DumpLoc% -i
    \Device\NPF_{35418EFA-22FB-4ADF-A88C-892918610B9F} -f "src net
    10.0.0.4"

    WireShark.exe -r %DumpLoc% -R "syslog.msg contains \"INVITE
    sip:\" and syslog.msg contains \"Proxy\""

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Feb 22, 2011
    #11
  12. (PeteCresswell)

    alexd Guest

    Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.voip Job Justification Hearings,
    (PeteCresswell) chose the tried and tested strategy of:

    > I tried the capture filter thing over-and-over.... but no joy.
    >
    > I get the distinction between capture and display filters, but
    > every time I tried, wound up with a display and not a capture
    > filter.


    There's either a difference in the way the Windows and Linux versions of
    Wireshark implement capture filters, or yours has got a bug in it.

    > My workaround has been to use DumpCap.exe - which comes with
    > WireShark. DumpCap creates a .pcap file, same as WireShark; and
    > WireShark can read the file.
    >
    > There seem tb syntax limitations on one type of filter over the
    > other, and it looks like searching for a substring isn't in the
    > cards capture-wise.


    Yes, the capture filter language is different to that of the display
    filters, which is what I thought you meant by "I get the distinction between
    capture and display filters"!

    http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureFilters
    http://wiki.wireshark.org/DisplayFilters


    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    20:23:58 up 4 days, 23:04, 6 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.19
    "I am utterly appalled at how I have been treated like a criminal"
    -- Andrew Crossley, ACS:Law, 13 August 2010
     
    alexd, Feb 23, 2011
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    "(PeteCresswell)" <> writes:
    > Per (PeteCresswell):
    >>I think I'm in the market for a "digit grabber".

    >
    > I seem to have found both the tool in WireShark with a filter.
    >
    > For the benefit of any other noobs climbing the same curve, here
    > is what I am doing to test my dial plans:
    >
    > =============================================================
    > 01) Download and install WireShark
    >
    > 02) In the 3102's web interface, select "Admin" and "Advanced"
    > from the small blue type in the upper right.
    >
    > 03) Set Line 1 | SIP Debug Option: to "Full"
    >
    > 04) Set System | Debug Server to the local IP address of
    > the PC that you will be running WireShark on.
    >
    > 05) Fire up WireShark


    If the system is a unix-like system, you can simply capture the
    messages with syslogd (although it can be fiddly as the syslog
    header is missing from some of the messages).

    If the system is Windows, Spiura used to supply a executable
    which captured and logged the messages, although I don't know
    if that's still available from Cisco.

    --
    Andrew Gabriel
    [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
     
    Andrew Gabriel, Feb 23, 2011
    #13
  14. (PeteCresswell)

    Nick Guest

    In message <ik43er$oha$-september.org>, Andrew Gabriel
    <> writes
    >
    >If the system is Windows, Spiura used to supply a executable
    >which captured and logged the messages, although I don't know
    >if that's still available from Cisco.
    >

    If not, I've been using Kiwi's free syslog server for some time:
    http://www.kiwisyslog.com/kiwi-syslog-server-overview/
    --
    Nick (=----)
     
    Nick, Feb 24, 2011
    #14
  15. Per alexd:
    >There's either a difference in the way the Windows and Linux versions of
    >Wireshark implement capture filters, or yours has got a bug in it.


    I would not be too quick to rule out user RCI.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Feb 24, 2011
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Per
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,148
    Jeff Specoli
    Jul 21, 2003
  2. cyrus
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    949
    cyrus
    Nov 24, 2003
  3. Chris Eilersen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    466
    Chris Eilersen
    Nov 13, 2004
  4. Wim
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    740
    Andrew Gabriel
    Dec 17, 2005
  5. [BnH]
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    590
    Walter Hofmann
    Sep 24, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page