I'm having a bit of trouble with my SPA502G phone's dial plan. This is my current dial plan for ext 1 :
L:15,S:2,(p5 | *9xxx | *9x | [1-4]xx | 6xx | 7xx | xxx xxxx | 608 xxx xxxx | <:1>xxx xxx xxxx | x xxx xxx xxxx )
The issue I'm having is it isn't behaving like I think it should be. From what I understand with this current dial plan if i type 610 into my phone it should accept that and dial it. But it only accepts 600 which doesn't make sense to me because 6xx should accept everything from 600 - 699. Also I can't dial anything in the 700's range.
My phone is at the latest version: 7.4.9c
I appricate any and all help I receieve.
Not sure why that wouldn't work either. I assume you're registering this phone to Asterisk or some other SIP based phone system. This is the dial plan we use for all of the SPA5xx phones. It has never failed us. (*x.|**|x*x.|xx*x.|x.*x.*x.*x.*x|11|0|00|[2-9]xxxxxx|1xxx[2-9]xxxxxxS0|xxxxxxxxxxxx.)
I even removed the long and short timers and all the white space (by some other suggestions) and this doesn't help. Dialing 600 oddly is a complete address but 601 is not. And nothing 700-799 is complete.
Also another odd event is while testing this I wanted to dail a seven digit number and I put into the phone 1234567 and that fails to be compelte either, even though it matches the 7 x's in the 7th piped position.
Yes this is SIP registered and working on an Asterisk system.
The dial plan we use above is what we use on our Asterisk based systems. It is a multi tenant box that has extension numbers that range from 1 digit extensions up to 5 digit extensions. Unless you just want something that is more specific, that dial plan covers most, if not all, situations that you would encounter on your single tenant system.
I don't mind using yours but I'm really confused why mine doesn't work. If I'm doing something wrong i'd like to learn now so when i setup our next one (which will be a multi tenant system) I don't encounter issues.
I don't think you're doing anything wrong. I just think that your dial plan may be too specific. Dial plans are like access-list's in a router. The dialed digits will hit on the first match that they find in a dial plan and not move onto the next one even though it might be a better match.
But with this dial plan: (which I simplified)
If I dial 700. It doesn't match the first slot because their is no *. It also doesn't match the second one for the same reason. It does however match 7xx and should allow me to send this call on. But instead it the Cisco device says "AddressIncomplete" and sounds a busy tone and that doesn't make sense to me. I would only like 100 - 400 600-799 for three digits, and then my normal 7 digits, local 608 with no 1, and then 10 digit adding a 1, and then full 11 digit dialing. I'm not sure if my logic is sound, but that is what I'm trying to do.
Andrew, your new dial plan looks ok to me, too.
Perhaps your VoIP proxy server has some kind of dial restrictions on the numbers that it won't accept. (just a guess)
The phone isn't sending it to Asterisk. Asterisk has a interactive CLI that lets you see what is being dialed and 601-799 never makes it to Asterisk ,but 600 does. (Which only adds to the confusion, that 600 matches the pattern but 700 doesn't)
I don't get it. Is there a setting that disables the dial plan or causes the phone to ignore it? Or is there some kind of setting that makes the phone view the dial plan differently? I'm open to any and all suggestions.
I have to thank both of you for helping me. The problem was actually the VOIP gateway. Seems before it dials (which is where I was watching Asterisk from) it opens a SIP channel to Asterisk and asks Asterisk if the extension exists in the dial plan and then when Asterisk says it doesn't (because it doesn't yet exist) it tells the phone via SIP that it won't work and the phone won't try to dial then.
So I was right it wasn't dialing the number, but it wasn't right WHY it wasn't dialing the number. The local dial plan was correct, the gateway was rejecting it before dialing.
I do appoligise for not finding this issue sooner. Lets just hope others can learn from this mistake.