[Asterisk-Users] Wacko Distinctive Ring Patterns being detected??

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 09:03:29AM +1000, Gonzalo Servat wrote:
> On 5/29/05, Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir at cohens.org.il> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 06:34:23AM +1000, Gonzalo Servat wrote:
> [snip]
> > > If Asterisk allowed me to configure up to 10 ringing patterns, I could
> > > probably cover most of the ringing patterns being detected, but
> > > unfortunately there is a limit of 3 which means 50% (or more) of the
> > > calls are coming in under a distinctive ring pattern not configured in
> > > Asterisk, and hence going to the default context.
> > 
> > Is there any deeper reason for that limitation, other than "it didn't
> > bother anybody enough"?
> 
> I wonder that myself, but I have no idea why the limit is imposed. Any
> Asterisk developers willing to answer that for us?
> 
> > > Does anyone have any suggestions/ideas/etc on how to resolve this issue?
> > 
> > Could you post here some ring patterns you get? A distinctive ring can
> > identify a pattern that is "similar" enough to an existing pattern.
> 
> You're right, some that were not defined were close enough to the
> ringing pattern and did match, but even with 3 popular distinctive
> rings defined there were still calls that were coming up with a new
> distinctive ring pattern and not getting matched by the defined dring
> patterns.
> 
> Some of the ones I frequently saw were:
> 
> 334,147,0
> 383,195,0
> 334,0,0
> 336,348,0
> 334,146,0

334,147,0 and 334,146,0 are practically the same. As for 334,0,0:
Maybethe second patter was missed? I have the same problem here.

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen         | tzafrir at jbr.cohens.org.il | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il |                           | a Mutt's  
tzafrir at cohens.org.il |                           |  best
ICQ# 16849755         |                           | friend