[cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
Leonardo D'Urso
durso at alter.it
Tue May 25 17:32:22 EDT 2004
ciao Lelio,
I'm using CCM 3.3.4 with os version 2.6.
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:
> We are using a similar 'alternative' method on campus for our dial plan
> and would love to assist, but we are in the middle of a mass migration
> and have zero spare cycles.
>
> It seems that your system works properly when it's a regular phone, but
> breaks with extension mobility. In that case, I'd say a call to the TAC
> is in order.
>
> What version are you using?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Leonardo D'Urso
> To: Wes Sisk
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 5:23 PM
> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
>
>
>
> Wes,
>
> I apologize for pressing, but have you notice or is it this a good
> argument for a tac query?
> Please let me know.
>
> thanks in advance.
> Leonardo
>
>
> On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wes Sisk wrote:
>
> > Leonardo,
> >
> > I suspect ! is going to be a special case because it implies any digit, any
> > number of digits. Therefore the idea of "better match" pretty much
> > disappears.
> >
> > We typically use calculations to see which is "better match"
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > 91X = (1 possible match) * (1 possible match) * (10 possible matches) = 10
> > 1XX = (1 possible match) * (10 possible matches) * (10 possible matches) =
> > 100
> >
> > Therefore 91X is a closer match if both 9 and 1 are matched.
> >
> > However in the case of a variable length dialplan, this analysis does not
> > hold up. I need to do a bit of testing, but I fear that solution was tested
> > with the fixed length US dialplan in mind.
> >
> > /Wes
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Leonardo D'Urso [mailto:durso at alter.it]
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:09 AM
> > > To: Wes Sisk
> > > Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > > Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Wes, hi all
> > >
> > > oh no Leonardo again! ;-)
> > >
> > > I have read the chapter in online manual (chapter 7 page 8,9), and I have
> > > read chapter 9 of Paul Girard: Troubleshooting ecc... I think my
> > > configuration respect the closest match concept.
> > >
> > > I have the same configuration on another customer of mine, with a
> > > difference, lines(DN) are defined statically on phones and no user device
> > > profile is in use. In this case all works fine.
> > >
> > > This is an example of configuration in which I describe all of components:
> > >
> > > the phone can call everyone. So it has a css in which there is a partition
> > > in which I have the rp 0.! that points to the voice gateway for this
> > > location.
> > >
> > > the user device profile, in which I have the line, has a css in which I
> > > have a partition in which I have a rp that blocks all calls to the
> > > international. This route pattern is 0.00!
> > >
> > > when I call:
> > >
> > > 0001-555-5555555 (where the first zero is used to catch the line)
> > >
> > > the ccs of the user device profile defined into DN should match the block,
> > > and then go to the bogus voice gateway.
> > >
> > > But what happens is that the call is routed to voice gateway, and so this
> > > approach seems that don't works.
> > >
> > > Any idea?
> > >
> > >
> > > thanks in advance.
> > > Leonardo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wes Sisk wrote:
> > >
> > > > Leonard,
> > > >
> > > > It sounds like you are attemting use "An Alternative Approach
> > > to Configuring
> > > > Calling Search Spaces" found in the Callmanager 3.3 SRND
> > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/largeent/it/ese/srnd.html
> > > >
> > > > In order the for the blocking/permitting patterns to work as
> > > described, your
> > > > 'permit' patterns must be a closer match than your 'deny' patterns. The
> > > > "closest match" logic is best described in Chapter 9 of Paul
> > > Giralt's book
> > > > "Troubleshooting Cisco IP Telephony".
> > > >
> > > > Currently Dialed Number Analyzer actually uses its own match
> > > logic instead
> > > > of using that of the currently active ccm.exe process. This can lead to
> > > > incorrect results in very specific corner cases, such as yours.
> > > 95% of the
> > > > time, DNA should provide accurate results.
> > > >
> > > > /Wes
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> > > > > [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Leonardo D'Urso
> > > > > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 6:45 PM
> > > > > To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > > > > Subject: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > hi there,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have done this configuration:
> > > > >
> > > > > my phones has a css in which I have a route pattern that
> > > authorize all for
> > > > > the phone.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have user device profile in which I have configured a css with
> > > > > partitions that don't permit for example international calls.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I try to verify with Dialed number analyzer all works fine, the
> > > > > international call, that is NOT authorized match the rule and ends on
> > > > > bogus gateway.
> > > > >
> > > > > But when I do this making phone call the call is routed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this an Extension mobility limit? I have this configuration without
> > > > > extension mobility and all works fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks in advance,
> > > > > Leonardo
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > > > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
More information about the cisco-voip
mailing list