Greetings,
I have a multi-tenant fusionpbx deployment with about a dozen domains. Today, I added another domain and began setting up extensions, groups, etc. and I noticed that I couldn't make calls between by test extensions. Whenever I would try to call one extension from the other, I would receive a "404" from the system.
I checked the logs and found that there were only a small handful of dialplan rules it was trying to match, not including "user_exists", so there was no route found, resulting in the 404. So I checked the dialplan manager and compared it to other domains on this instance and found that the other domains had duplicate entries for rules like "user_exists", one with the "${domain_name}" context and another in the actual domain context. My new domain does not have these duplicate entries, only entries with the context "${domain_name}".
I am assuming these duplicates are the result of things working properly and my lack of duplicates in the new domain is the oddball result. Would anyone have any idea if this is the case and, if so, why this may have happened?
Thanks!
I have a multi-tenant fusionpbx deployment with about a dozen domains. Today, I added another domain and began setting up extensions, groups, etc. and I noticed that I couldn't make calls between by test extensions. Whenever I would try to call one extension from the other, I would receive a "404" from the system.
I checked the logs and found that there were only a small handful of dialplan rules it was trying to match, not including "user_exists", so there was no route found, resulting in the 404. So I checked the dialplan manager and compared it to other domains on this instance and found that the other domains had duplicate entries for rules like "user_exists", one with the "${domain_name}" context and another in the actual domain context. My new domain does not have these duplicate entries, only entries with the context "${domain_name}".
I am assuming these duplicates are the result of things working properly and my lack of duplicates in the new domain is the oddball result. Would anyone have any idea if this is the case and, if so, why this may have happened?
Thanks!