<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>I was the one who added that "evil" warning to the Dialplan Tools page, based on comments here from those who know. (The loopback page is devoid of that remark and quite sparse at that.) I figured it would relieve some additional support burden from the developers and steer users clear of trouble with such a remark. At the very least, it should make them tread more carefully when implementing loopback.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>The current description on that page seems a bit off the mark:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>"Possible to 'bridge' to other extension on same server"<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>I mean, FreeSWITCH can do that right out of the box between extensions 1000-1019 so loopback wouldn't even be needed for that operation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>As I understand it, loopback provides a temporary place-holder to terminate a call until it can be disposed of to a "real" endpoint such as voicemail or a B-leg. Is this correct?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Bote<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> João Mesquita<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 10 January, 2013 12:46<br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Jon, the loopback will most certainly be evil if you are processing CDRs. If you want to keep it simple, avoid using it at all costs. It should always be a last resort.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>João Mesquita<br>FreeSWITCH™ Solutions<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Michael Collins <<a href="mailto:msc@freeswitch.org" target="_blank">msc@freeswitch.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The devs have done their best to make loopback not be evil but in some respects it must be, because it is what is it. Some folks use it all the time without any issues. Just manage your expectations. :)<br><br>That being said, you mentioned you need to dial a "dialplan" for each user and that you need to do so in parallel. Without more information I can't offer a better solution, although when I hear things like "dial in parallel" I immediately think "enterprise originate." More information is found on the <a href="http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Freeswitch_IVR_Originate#Enterprise_originate" target="_blank">wiki</a> or in the <a href="http://link.packtpub.com/nuIOlX" target="_blank">FS Cookbook</a>.<br><br>-MC<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Jon Schøpzinsky <<a href="mailto:jos@firstcom.dk" target="_blank">jos@firstcom.dk</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hello List,<br><br>I can see that the "this will destroy the world and this may kill your pets" warning has been removed from the documentation for the Loopback endpoint.<br><br>Is this an indication that it has become safer to use?<br><br>I have a specific problem where I essentially have to dial a dialplan for each user I am trying to reach, in parallel.<br>Is it correctly understood that loopback would be the best/only way of implementing this, or is there another way?<br><br><br>Kind Regards<br><br>Jon Schøpzinsky<br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>