No, FR2 would block all external connections. You could make the persons number "non-DID" (change the number so it is not a direct dial extension).
If you don't want to or can't change the number, you can intercept/divert calls to that number at the trunk route using LD49 IDC - Incoming Digit Conversion.
In other words is someone dials 555-1234, your IDC table can say "send 1234 to 4321" - while internal calls to 1234 will still go to 1234.
We need to know to exact digits that your telephone carrier is delivering into your system, and on what trunk route the calls come in.
For example, if callers dial DID 063-153595 from home, does the telephone carrier simply insert 3595 into the DID trunk? If so, then identify that trunk route, look to see what IDC table the trunk route has and enter the digits the telephone carrier inserts followed by the digits you want to convert them to.
My guess is the carrier is sending you four or five digits.
Clearly you have some conversion going on now, but I can't see how the 53595 could be converted to 23595 - which leads me to think only the last four digits are being sent by the carrier
There´s seems to be a problem.
DCNO 3 looks like this today:
DCNO 3
SDID YES
IDGT CDGT
168 168
169 169
2 22
3 23
Since 3 already is represented and converts to 23 I can´t add 3595 NNNNN. Excuse this stupid question, but what is the difference between DCNO 1, 2 and 3? Does different trunk routes go to different IDC tables (DCNO)?
As to the question... Yep, if you print out the Route Data Blocks, you'll see a prompt DCNO. That value determines what DCNO is used.
Back to the 3 already existing. I missed that and you are correct. There is a lengthy way around it though. (this assumes we are interpreting the DID plan correctly)
Thank you GHTROUT very much for your help! I will have to ask the owner of the system if it´s ok for me to do this. In the future perhaps many different people would like to block for incoming external calls and finally we will have a IDC table so long so it´s "impossible" to interpret it. So I will have to think carefully before I answer the person who wanted this if it is possible to do or not. Once again, thank you very much for your help!
I agree - if it were me, it might be worth addressing the issues as 'personnel' problems. I mean, if someone just won't cut back on the calls, they probably have many other ways to mis-use their time as well. I'd rather have someone who can be reached by family members when it is really needed, but with the understanding that there is a reasonable definition of "really needed to call them"
New PostDFKSydney, that's a great idea if the system has the Supplemental/International feature set. There's a good chance of that considering the DID number they said they had. Excellent followup!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.