[Asterisk-Users] Important: Application DIALPLAN STANDARD/GUIDELINES needs to be established.

[James Gardiner]

Hello Asterisk community.
We have a small User-group in Melbourne Australia.
Recently I brought up the issue of STANDARDS for dialing Applications on 
a PBX.

This generated some interest but also the fact little has been done on 
this topic.
Below is a rundown of our THREAD. (start from bottom and go up)

I myself, feel this to be an important issue.  With Asterisk being so 
programmable, anything can be done.  But should it.  I would like to see 
some type of guide line or standard for extension layouts.

We have not been able to find any reference to this.  However, I hope 
the greater Asterisk community has, and if so, please share.

Thanks,
James

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, it comes down to personal preference I think, we use *1 for VM, 
and check CLID to take a caller directly to their VM box if it exists, 
vairous other internal functions from *1-9, other externally accessible 
functions from *10-19, conference rooms *20-39, etc...  We've had no 
problems, but then we run a controlled set of end-user hardware.  I 
suppose for a rollout with unkown/mixed hardware some research is 
required to determine the reserved functions.

So, yes, two ideas might be to have a prefix (that is ensured never to 
be used in real number space!) for all functions, the other would be to 
have a number to dial that drops the caller into a context containing 
all features, possible even with voice prompts...

Just idle thoughts...


James Gardiner wrote:

 >Hello all,
 >Well, I would like to bring note to this topic as an important issue.
 >I am working on a AMP like application and want to standardize on
 >number sequences.  *MAIL and *PARK sound like good ideas, however, they
 >are long button sequences.
 >Using * for applications, I feel, looks a bit shaky as its well used
 >with no formula by many companies for DND and other things.
 >So for example. *PARK is *7275.   I am pretty sure *72 is some type of
 >feature on Cisco/sipura handsets so, the handset will upset these
 >sequence of numbers.
 >
 >I was looking at bringing it all to a standard or "1" application
 >number Park "17"
 >VM "15"  direct "152000" for extension 2000. "15*2000" direct to
 >voicemail for 2000 Listen to MOH "1100"
 >Test dial in context "1000"
 >Etc. (There are many other options to consider.)
 >
 >Something like this;
 >Could the group members please make comment on what each of them sees
 >advantages and disadvantages of this idea.
 >Or any better ones.
 >
 >I am really open to suggestions. I really need to solidify the dial
 >plan and manual.
 >
 >Thanks,
 >James
 >
 >
 >
 >-----Original Message-----
 >From: voip-bounces at melbn.com [mailto:voip-bounces at melbn.com] On Behalf
 >Of jurgen
 >Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2006 11:09 AM
 >To: Melbn VOIP
 >Subject: Re: [Melbn-VOIP] Standards for Dialing applications????
 >
 >When I was making some dial plan decisions several months ago, I didn't
 >see any real standards either, aside from some that telcos have used
 >(*69 for recent calls, etc). So I just went and made up my own, based
 >on words: *MAIL (*6245), *PARK, etc etc. They're easy for users to
 >remember, and as long as the phones have letters on them as well as
 >numbers, they're easy to dial.
 >
 >
 >On 22/02/2006, at 9:59 AM, James Gardiner wrote:
 >
 >  >
 >>New Topic..
 >>
 >>I am looking at writing some documentation for and users and also
 >>implementing different features in an Asterisk system.
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>I have been looking around at different systems.
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>Now the *NN appears to be common between manufactures.  Is there a
 >>documented standard for this?
 >>
 >>Do they just make it up as they want?
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>For example. There does not appear to be a standard for dialling
 >>Voicemail.
 >>
 >>Parking etc.
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>I suppose, the simple question is.
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>Is there one?
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>If not, what is the consensus on dial codes for these options?
 >>
 >>For example what do well known vendors use.  (Like cisco, etc)
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>Thanks,
 >>
 >>James
 >>
 >>
 >>