[Spce-user] Rewrite rules

[Theo]

Hi Daniel

Got you on that one! Thanks, I will play some more with that.

It doesn't however (I think) address my 2nd issue. This issue is not
related to wanting to assign a peer to a suscriber - in this scenario I
wouldn't want to do that. Here I am just looking at adding caller patterns
to a peer. Say as follows.

We interconnect with carrier A, B and C.

Carrier A - prefix is 067 so all calls starting with that will be sent there
Carrier B - prefix is 068 so all calls starting with that will be sent there
Carrier C - prefix is 069 so all calls starting with that will be sent there

So far so good.

number 067 141 3124 would ordinarily be sent to Carrier A. However, that
number no longer belongs to Carrier A because its owner has moved to
Carrier B, keeping his number. We will now need to send that number to
Carrier B, instead of Carrier A. It still fits the pattern for Carrier A
though as well so how do I make sure it will NOT go through Carrier A? And
is there a way of importing all those numbers that no longer belong to
carrier A even though the 067 prefix would indicate they do? Ideally we
would need to update this list daily as people move across to other
carriers daily as well, but probably more realistically we'd want to do
this once a week or so.

Cheers

Theo


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Daniel Grotti <dgrotti at sipwise.com> wrote:

> Hi Theo,
> I understand your problem now.
> What you can do, instead of assign a sip peer to a subscriber (that's
> not possible), you can play with Rewrite Rules.
>
> You can route calls based on callee or caller to a specific peer adding
> a prefix for callee (or caller) using the Subscriber's Inbound Rewrite
> rules.
> Then use that prefix in Peering Rules to match that call (so the call
> will follow that peer server) and then strip the prefix with Peer's
> Outbound Rewrite Rules.
>
> CALL --> SUBs REWIRTE RULES ---> FETCH GW ---> GW REWRITE RULES --->
> OUTBOUND
>
>
>
> br,
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
> On 04/17/2013 07:59 PM, Theo wrote:
> > Hi Daniel
> >
> > Either I am completely misunderstanding it (and I must admit that I find
> > this part of your platform the most confusing), or I have not made clear
> > what I am looking for.
> >
> > The 2nd issue is not related to the first. We have interconnects with X
> > carriers. While each of those carriers have their own prefix, clients
> > can port their numbers. This effectively means that there is no longer a
> > "group". Each telephone number can belong to any of those carriers. So
> > while there is a prefix base for each carrier, there is a massive and
> > growing database of numbers that initially belonged to a certain
> > carrier, but don't anymore. As a result we need to specify around 4
> > million numbers to be sent to peer X, y, or z. This 4 million will soon
> > be 5 million, etc.
> >
> > Hope that clarifies what I am trying to get to?
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Theo
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Daniel Grotti <dgrotti at sipwise.com
> > <mailto:dgrotti at sipwise.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hello Theo,
> >
> >     again, why you don't use Callee Pattern instead of Callee Prefix ?
> >     With Callee Pattern you can use regular expression to group up your
> >     numbers.
> >
> >     br,
> >     Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 04/17/2013 05:21 PM, Theo wrote:
> >     > we'd need millions of rules
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Spce-user mailing list
> >     Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com <mailto:Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com>
> >     http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spce-user mailing list
> Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
> http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sipwise.com/pipermail/spce-user_lists.sipwise.com/attachments/20130418/30afded0/attachment-0001.html>