[Spce-user] Having an issue with Inbound Rewrite Rules forCaller

[Bob Fryer]

Daniel,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Your short post was extremely helpful, and gave me the direction in
finding several issues.

Although I don't want to admit what the problems were (PBCAK), it may
help others.

First of all, the main issue was that in all the testing, I had
unassigned the rewrite rules, and with the focus on getting the regex
right (and particularly the 8 Digit numbers, I had not ventured back out
of that area and realised the mistake.

Your snippet of your log, was very helpful and when I realised I was not
getting the same logs, it made me realise that there was a bigger issue
(which was the rewrite rules were not being applied).

Secondly my focus was on the wrong area of the rewrite rules. The
particular function I was needing to work on was the Inbound Rewrite
Rules for the Callee.

So I can confirm that the 8 Digit to E.164 regex pattern does work. We
are now seeing all calls being written into the CDRs as E.164 numbers

These issues arose from SIPWise blindness, staring at the same page in
SIPWise for too long ;-)

If it helps others, I found it useful to perform a screen shot of the
rewrite rules page and under each section, I have taken the main
description line from the manual (e.g. These rules are used to rewrite
the number the end user dials to place a call to a standard format for
routing lookup) about each of the four sections of the Rewrite rules and
placed under each heading in RED.

By doing this, each rewrite rule I made, I look back at that description
and confirm it is what I am trying to achieve. I found this faster and
provided a more confident approach in adding these rules.

Whilst I am not finished, I am now on the right path and thank you again
for your post.

Regards

Bob





-----Original Message-----
From: spce-user-bounces at lists.sipwise.com
[mailto:spce-user-bounces at lists.sipwise.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Grotti
Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013 5:38 PM
To: spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
Subject: Re: [Spce-user] Having an issue with Inbound Rewrite Rules
forCaller

Hi Bob,

I tried the Regexp on Inbound RR for caller and it works fine.

In the /var/log/ngcp/kamailio-proxy.log you should see something like
that:

INFO: <script>: User-Provided CLI '12345678' taken from From-User -
R=sip:0099998888 at 10.15.20.178 ID=vvsphdtyyjnogwk at majortom
INFO: <script>: Applying caller-in domain rewrite rules on user-provided
CLI using dpid '1' - R=sip:0099998888 at 10.15.20.178
ID=vvsphdtyyjnogwk at majortom
INFO: <script>: Rewriting user-provided CLI '12345678' to '43112345678'
- R=sip:0099998888 at 10.15.20.178 ID=vvsphdtyyjnogwk at majortom


Is it possible for you to share your /var/log/ngcp/kamailio-proxy.log
file in order to debug the issue ?


Regards,
Daniel



On 07/16/2013 03:24 AM, Bob Fryer wrote:
> Hi List,
> 
> I am hoping that someone can assist. I have been looking at this issue

> for several days now before I have posted.
> 
> Rechecked all my work, checked I am using the correct regex tests etc 
> etc.
> 
> After working on SIPWise for over a month now, we have a reasonable 
> handle on how everything works, and the concepts.
> 
> Just to confirm the concept that this post is about, I believe that 
> the Inbound Rewrite rules are the correct ones that I should be 
> concentrating on at the moment. What I understand this area is for is 
> I have a subscriber who has a PBX, and they are dialling a number. 
> Once it reaches SIPwise, its first stage I believe is the 'Inbound 
> Rewrite Rules for Caller' where it finds a match (if available) and 
> rewrites based on the replacement pattern. This is to allow SIPWise to

> process all numbers as E.164 format, which includes the billing 
> engine. Our Outbound Rewrite rules mainly take these now converted 
> E.164 numbers and process them back to numbers that the local carrier 
> requires to perform a connection to the desired phone number.
Hopefully this is correct.
> 
> Basically we have most of the Inbound Rewrite Rules for Caller working

> (there plenty of great examples to work off).
> However there is one rule which does not appear to work which is the 
> first rule in our list. Our rules for Inbound Rewrite Rules for Caller

> are as follows:
> 
> Match Pattern                           Replacement Pattern
> Description
> ^(\d{8})$                               ${caller_cc}${caller_ac}\1
> Local 8 Digits to E.164  (it should match 8 digits only)
> ^(0011|\+)([1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]+)$      \2
> International to E.164
> ^0([1-9][0-9]+)$                        ${caller_cc}\1
> Australian National & Mobile to E.164
> 
> 
> Just so the above makes some sense, in Australia we have the following
> 
> The Subscriber has the CC of 61 and AC of 2 International Calls use 
> 0011 prefix to dial international numbers followed by the E164 
> standard Our Mobile numbers are 04XXXXXXXX e.g. 0414989898 or 
> 0418909090 National Calls have the two digit Area Code + 8 digit 
> number e.g.
> 0299998888 or 0388889999
> In the local area (in our case area code 02, you can dial the 8 digit 
> phone number 99998888
> 
> As mentioned the first rule ^(\d{8})$ does not appear to match when 
> the incoming number is 99998888, it appears to fall through to our 
> default billing rule as the replacement is not done which should be 
> 61299998888 and the number passes through as 99998888
> 
> I have tested this rule on several PCRE regex online engines and seems

> to work correctly. The one I have been using a lot is 
> http://regex.larsolavtorvik.com/
> 
> With this regex pattern and replacement and an input of 99998888 in 
> the online engine, I get a match and a result of 61299998888 (exactly 
> what I need).
> If I provide an input of 9999888 I do not get a match and it passes 
> through the 9999888 If I provide an input of 999988888 I do not get a 
> match and its passes through the 999988888
> 
> For the sake of it I also have tried a replacement pattern of 612\1 
> and also 612\0 which again also provides the same results as above
> 
> Just so I understand the Inbound Rewrite rules, the patterns are 
> applied in the order that they are in the table, the first correct 
> match (as it moves down the table) will then apply the replacement 
> pattern. If there is no match it will continue down the table..if 
> there are no matches it will perform no rewrite and pass the number
through.
> 
> Can anybody assist with why this is not working, correct my 
> understanding, or just offer some advice. Any is appreciated.
> Is there a log to confirm where these matches are being made. My 
> understanding is that it should be written to the billing table in the
> e.164 format (providing it has been rewritten), is this correct?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Bob Fryer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spce-user mailing list
> 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