ip office restrict call

[safouene]

Hello ,
I have 4 internals analog phones with extensions ( 200,201,202,203 ) + ip office 500 v1 r5

I want that the phone number three ( 202) is unable to call the first phone(200) but he can call the rest.
how I do that with details please.
Thanks

 

[MisterRobot_imported]

i have the same issues with this lab. Anyone have knowledge and solution about it please answer me .

 

[Okkie26]

Not possible...

 

[MisterRobot_imported]

why its not possible ? can you please explain more

 

[Okkie26]

Because it isn't

Ask Avaya why. IP Office is no multi tennant system.


And next to that, if you have to ask this, you probably need a course..

 

[sizbut]

Why would you want to? In a small system like that if you try to block my calls I would get up and come to your desk and SHOUT.

Your explanation doesn't say anything about why 202 and 200 are different from other extensions - is one a phone in a public area? is this the boss being stupid? fax device? what? ie. what is the reason behind what you are trying to achieve.

Meanwhile, make it 200's problem by putting them on DND with DND exceptions for calls with external prefixes and all external extensions except 202.

Stuck in a never ending cycle of file copying.

 

[MisterRobot_imported]

first of all, you have to respect the thread that Sofouenne has put it and be serious about your answer, this is not a general forum or for hangout forum , its a professional forum, so let's be serious here. We have a technical situation on work and we need to implement this method (exemple of usage : a director dont want to be disturbed by a specific internal user, so he want to block a specific extension for calling him ,and let the rest can call him normally). The DND solution is not usefull because if we have 1000 users , so to block one extension , i have to put 999 extentions number on the exception list , this is not realistic. So please if there is one experience on IPO in Tek-Tips forum, let us know about the best solution.

 

[sizbut]

That was a serious answer, in a system as small as avaya2015's all 4 extension users can probably see each other - so please remove the pompous rod from your back (and that's being polite).

If your situation is different (999 extensions - really!?) start your own thread rather than hijacking someone else's since the solution, if any, may also need to be different.



Stuck in a never ending cycle of file copying.

 

[MisterRobot_imported]

i have the some issue now , we have 5 users with these extentions(300,301,302,303,305) , the main objective is to block 300 to call 301 , but the rest can call each other normally. the DND solution is not practical because if we raise the numbers of users (exemple : 280 users) we have to put 279 input at the exception list. So , i need a better solution to resolve the problem, Thank you.

 

[sizbut]

As said, start your own thread since the solution that may be acceptable for avaya2015s particular scenario may not be acceptable for yours.

And in your thread explain why is it so particular that 300 can't ring 301. As Okkie as pointed out this is not the normal behaviour for IP Office so some workarounds are needed and what is/isn't usable depends heavily on the actual scenario.

Stuck in a never ending cycle of file copying.

 

[amriddle01]

IT CANNOT BE DONE. That's the answer. It's the same answer no matter how many times/different ways you ask the same question. No workarounds, no cheats.

You bought/sold the wrong system if this is an absolute requirement...who's fault is that?

 

[mattKnight]

Oh dear.

It appears to me that you have bought the wrong telephone system.

You have a requirement for 1 user not to be able to ring another 1 user. Frankly, this is a very contrived situation - and the only real way it is possible is to use DND and exception lists, for which you are unwilling to do.

As mentioned IP office is not designed to prevent extension to extension calls from being made. Why, because it is a very rare requirement. Multi-tenant however might assist you, but still isn't available.

I'd suggest that a reversal of your attitude (which I will accept is partly due to English not being your first language) would benefit you if you intend to stay here long.

Finally, 2 new members asking the same question on the same day? Coincidence?



Take Care

Matt
I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone.
My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.

 

[safouene]

It's right that the DND solution is not acceptable for my scenario , if we raise the number of users

 

[holdmusic34]

Joins today. Tells Sizbut how to act in a forum.
Hijacks thread with own problems.






Daddy! Geh UP! APPLES!

 

[amriddle01]

Finally, 2 new members asking the same question on the same day? Coincidence?

They know each other Matt, he gives the OPs name.

I would add that he also eludes to the fact it's a "Professional" forum, anyone who is a professional at working with IP Office should not be asking this question, so this thread should be deleted/ignored if we judge it by his own standards

 

[Pepp77]

Can sort of be done if you remove the dial delay count and have just a dial delay timer.

Short codes required on user 300

30N
barred
.

302
dial ext
302

303
dial ext
303

etc

dialling any 30N number not specifically listed will fail.

In the attached pic if I have just the first shortcode I cannot dial any extensions beginning 500. Adding the second shortcode then allows me to dial 5008.

All extensions on my test system are 500x


Edit - further testing actually shows this is hit and miss on whether it works or not and doesn't stop any users using the directory to call these users. It also appears that adding the 5008 shortcode allows 5001, 5002 etc to also all be dialled and the 500N barred shortcode no longer works. Having just the 500N/barred shortcode does stop me being able to call any 500x extensions though. So yes whilst you could in theory make it work it really isnt designed for it and will just not work properly or smoothly.

| ACSS SME |

 

[amriddle01]

That tends to break other stuff though Pepp, it'll come back to haunt you

 

[Pepp77]

Yep - edited as such.

Only knew about it when I used N instead of XXXX's on my first U-Law system.

| ACSS SME |

 

[amriddle01]

With 500N as the only shortcode that's what it matches so it bars the call, adding another potential match makes the system wait to see which it's going to match best and then as the 4th digit is dialled the Extn matching takes over and ignores the shortcode(s)

 

[holdmusic34]

Got to admit, sometimes they achieve elegance in their babble.

A supplicant imploration to the phone system gods for perspicacity.


Usually I'm just reduced to, 'Why doesn't work? Why?'

I find the litanic dirge much more appropriate.

Daddy! Geh UP! APPLES!