More than one route to a destination

Home » Asterisk Users » More than one route to a destination
Asterisk Users 2 Comments


I have a setup with 5 remote offices, each having a Asterisk PBX.
I then have a central office, also with an Asterisk PBX.
The remote offices have 2 links to the central office, a large link,
and a smaller, but more reliable link.
Unfortunately, using IAX is not an option for me.
Can I use 2 SIP Trunks from each remote offices to the central site
and permit 2 simultaneous calls across the SIP trunk that passes over
the smaller line, and permit 10 simultaneous calls across the larger
I also wish to have priorities, so that more important calls are sent
over the smaller link (but more reliable) and the larger link used for
less important calls.
Can you do this priority based on the user ID of the caller?

Another question:
If a user with a SIP client starts off in remote office1, and then
moves to remote office4, can then keep the same phone number?

Kind Regards


2 thoughts on - More than one route to a destination

  • IMO you can do this (I have a 1.4 client with 3 SIP trunks). Call-limit
    (or whatever flavor of that is applicable to your version) will let you
    control the flow across the trunks. The priority dialing would most likely
    have to be accomplished via AGI dialing since you would have to know if (a)
    a line is open or (b) can I kill the receptionists call so the boss can use
    the line? As for the last question, that’s just some dialplan manipulation.

  • Hi,


    1- find out the criteria for Imp calls and write dialplan to use the
    reliable link and use other SIP trunk otherwise.

    Yes. For any outbound call see who is the caller and if CALLERID(num)
    matches use desired link.

    If a user with a SIP client starts off in remote office1, and then

    AFAIK, you need to use DUNDI between the Asterisk Servers on top of SIP
    trunks. Once DUNDI is setup your users can move between offices and have
    just one extension.


    On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:12 PM, James Courtier-Dutton <> wrote: