I have a CME will likely be a 8.6 or 8.8 Does anyone have a clean way to stop extension "a" from calling extension "b" It is really two seperate companies on the same CME so they dont want company "a" from calling company "b" basically a multi tenant scenario.. The are really seperate division of the same company however we do need to stop the internal calls to one another.
Hope makes sense
Solved! Go to Solution.
This can be done by configuring Class of Restriction (COR). Here is a link
Its for older versions of CME, but should still point you in the right direction to accomplish your goal.
Hope that helped, please rate helpful posts.
I will soon as I test which will be in the next day or so. I can't rate an answer till it works. I have had too many wrong answers in the last 12 years
If your are using CME 8.6 /8.8 the best way to achive this is by uisng LPCOR ( logical partitioning) .below ia the link how to configre the same,
Logical partitioning is only needed if you need to seperate voip calls from TDM calls in countries that require it such as India, to accomplish what was originally asked for (block internal calls) you simply do what Kenneth said and implement simple COR lists, nothing more, nothing less.
I was going to use COR but I was wondering if any other way not that I want to give my self more work or or complicate matters but I wanted options.. I never thought of LPCOR for the reasons Chris mentioned..
If I find it works i will rate it.
I wouldn't solicit points Palo if I hadn't been around for so long I might have taken offense.
What do you have against rating posts even if they don't completely resolve the issue, but put you on the right track? Honestly in my opinion/experience it encourages folks like us to answer your additional questions, so that eventually you are satisfied. keep in mind nobody here gets paid to do this and everyone does it because they enjoy it. Looking at your profile I was disappointed to see that you have not rated any of your last 20 posts, was that because you got absolutely 0 assistance? If so, why do you come back here and re-post? It's not like you are signing a large check for consulting work :-)
Take it for what you want and hopefully your question gets answered.
Chris I have nothing against rating.
I always did I don't like giving bad ratings. In this case I will rate once I test. As for the last 20 some of them are off the cuff.
Now I also don't understand why the rating is so important. I have peers that no longer use the forum because of off the cuff answers people not reading the problem and giving bad answers as well as people getting defensive.
I like the forum but sometimes it isn't worth it. PDI is around
Again I am okay with rating and if this works I will
Palo I am not offended. Iknow you are one of the people that has a good track record as well as some good experience so i ususally will try your answers. I also do the same for Chris and Rob Huffman..
I looked back a some of my issues and I got some bad advice and I accept that in a forumjust care about rating and you get off the cuff answers that you end up with PDI or TAC I also see people that just want rated. So my attiude for now is I will test and if correct i will rate etc, If no good I will not rate..
I will say that this forum has gptten better over the last 12 years so maybe it is time to rate more but until I test I will not rate.
So I am cool and not offended
So finally tested in lab, LPCOR works ine and so does COR . The big difference is that LPCOR restricts at a device level where COR does it at a DN level. So both are correct..
LPCOR looks hard based on the doc but it really isn't that bad.