Recent content by jpyle

Ok, I figured this out. Early on in my Fusion PBX "wisdom" I had updated the local_extension bridge statement to use ${sofia_contact(${destination_number}@${domain_name})} instead of user/${destination_number}@${domain_name}. I think I was trying to use some of the multiple registration tricks...

I've verified the do_not_disturb field in the v_extensions table is getting set properly for a user's DND status, but even when true, calls continue to ring the extension. It looks like the do_not_disturb functionality itself is handled directly in the directory entry for the extension. From...

Enabling follow-me first prevents the error, but after enabling DND, calls to the extension continue to follow the follow-me route. It's still like the follow-me part of the dialplan just isn't there, or at the very least isn't working. Where is the follow-me part of the dialplan? Where does...

Hello, Enabling DND on an extension appears to have no effect -- calls still ring the extension normally. I can enable it through the Call Routing page on the web interface, dialing the feature code, or even with the DND button on the phone through feature sync (which is rather cool). In all...

I was close. Using it as an export, the BLF for the originating device didn't get cleared when it hung up some of the time. Running it in the bridge statement I'm having more success. Still strange, though. I wonder what's different here. I searched the fusionpbx github repo for...

I figured it out. I had to export the presence_id variable in the local_extension part of the dialplan. I did that, and I get callee BLF status now.

The approach to create a NATless profile flopped. FS is behind NAT, too, and I couldn't keep its public IP completely out of the signaling, even with setting sip/rtp-ip and ext-sip/rtp-ip to the internal one reachable in the VPN. Oh well. Yeah, I'm at a loss here. I've watched all the...

Dissecting chunk at a time... yes. This makes sense, although I can't shake the feeling that if a NOTIFY can make it back to a particular device for a particular BLF, why can't they all? Grr. This still smells like something switch-side to me. I'm operating under the assumption whatever...

Obvious or not, I'll take any questions that might work through this! Let me describe the scenario more completely. I have four test phones on this system, 201-204. 201 and 204 are Cisco SPA phones with attendant consoles watching all four users 201-204. 202 is a Polycom VVX watching only...

Adrian, This makes sense! ...but I'm not, and that's the issue. I wouldn't know how to configure FS for this behavior if I wanted it, so I'm stumped how to un-configure it, so to speak. Any ideas? It's a relatively stock installation. I've modified the install script only to add a few more...

Adrian, An interesting thought. I was watching it on the NAT edge between the LAN where the phone lives and the public IP. The FS server is upstream on the internet. This was over UDP. I hadn't considered this because in my experience UDP fragmentation is a suitable substitute for TCP...

Hello, I'm on FusionPBX master (just upgraded) with FreeSWITCH 1.8.7 (also just upgraded). I have a Polycom VVX and a few Cisco SPA phones generally working well on the system. Both a SPA and the VVX have BLFs configured to watch other extensions on the platform. When the target extension is...