I'm networking 3 SL1100's with SL Net. I thought I would number the extensions as: Site A = 100's; Site B = 200's; Site C = 300's.

But in the SL Net Help Guide, the example shows using 4 digit numbering, as 1100, 1200, 1300. Is there a reason to go with 4 digits if there is little likelyhood of more sites?

Thank you.
Jim

If SL Net is anything like Netlink on the bigger systems I can't think of any reason not to use 3 digit numbering..

I have a couple of networked SL1100s. Using 3 digit ext. numbers on both. 100s at one location, 300s at another. (Will add another site using 200s soon).

The only thing I had to mess with is the default VM pilot number - which is 3999. I just changed it to 399.

I followed the example and set things up with 4 digit numbering. Haven't connected to the network yet. Then got to thinking and decided to use 3 digit numbering after all.

I changed everything I thought I needed, as far as numbering goes, from 1200 to 200, at Site B. But got errors because of some virtual extensions and mailboxes with 200 numbers already in place. I didn't have this problem with the system for Site C (1300 to 300).

I wonder how to get this straightened out with the 200 site?

Thank you for any pointers.
Jim

Now you know why 4 digits is better. The 200's are pre-programmed as virtuals and VM ports. The 31XX's are pre-programmed for groups. You need to change all of the virtuals and VM ports to something else to clear out the 200's and 300's. Also, the 600's and 700's are pre-programmed for feature access codes. Using 1200/1300/1400 is easier and takes less reconfiguring.

Well, live and learn. I'll go back to 4 digit numbering. I'm all for easier and less configuring.

Thank you.
Jim

I've done it both ways on networked systems, kind of six and one-half-dozen. In PC Pro, in the general tab, you can use the multi-assign to change the numbering in mass for extensions, groups, and virtuals. Goes really quick.