[cisco-voip] Interdigit timeout issue for 7 digit calls

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

We went with a 9.@ with local area code does not exist filter and then added another with a filter that of local area code = 519. (our local area code) We basically let the PSTN notify the user if they dialed a number not in our exchange etc. 

Our dial plan consists entirely of 9.@ with filters rather than the manual entry of the 9.[2-9]XXXXXX sorta thing. 

I spoke to a number of TAC engineers at Networkers and CIPTUG and couldn't get a straight answer as to which is better or worse or if there are any caveats to choosing one over the other.

I wouldn't mind hearing comments from the group about the two options.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Erick Bergquist 
  To: Kevin Thorngren 
  Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 
  Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 10:50 AM
  Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Interdigit timeout issue for 7 digit calls 



  Kevin,

  Thanks. Yea, it does say ExclusivelyOffnet matches
  exist.

  Here is the info from the route list, view in file for
  route patterns for call that are overlapping
  (overlooked this before for some reason, didn't catch
  it).

  9.[2-9]XX[2-9]XXXXXX,,PT-10-DIGIT-DIALING,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL
  9.[2-9]XX976XXXX,,PT-BLOCKED-TELESCAMS,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL
  9.[2-9]XXXXXX,,PT-7-DIGIT-DIALING,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL

  Is there a better way to make the 7 digit dialing rule
  other then using rules for each local prefix? IE:
  9.296XXXX, etc?

  BTW, We also put in a route pattern of 9.2791234 and
  still had issue and traces used that pattern. Or would
  that overlap with the 10 digit pattern still?

  Thanks

  --- Kevin Thorngren <kthorngr at cisco.com> wrote:

  > Hi Erick,
  > 
  > In the CCM trace look for the Digit Analysis
  > Results, for example:
  > 
  > 09/15/2005 16:37:19.435 CCM|Digit analysis: analysis
  >  
  >
  results|<CLID::StandAloneCluster><NID::10.10.10.3><CT::
  > 
  >
  1,100,119,1.499977><IP::10.10.21.7><DEV::SEP00115CBAD09E>
  > 09/15/2005 16:37:19.435
  > CCM||PretransformCallingPartyNumber=9193
  > |CallingPartyNumber=9193
  > |DialingPartition=par-internal
  > |DialingPattern=9190
  > |DialingRoutePatternRegularExpression=(9190)
  > |DialingWhere=
  > |PatternType=Enterprise
  > |PotentialMatches=NoPotentialMatchesExist
  > 
  > If it has PotentialMatches=NoPotentialMatchesExist
  > then CCM does not  
  > have any other patterns it can match.  If it has
  > something else, such  
  > as PotentialMatches=PotentialMatchesExist or  
  >
  PotentialMatches=ExclusivelyOffnetPotentialMatchesExist,
  > then this  
  > means CCM has matched a pattern but can match other
  > patterns if more  
  > digits are dialed.
  > 
  > The easiest way I have found to find overlapping
  > patterns is to go to  
  > Route Plan > Route Plan Report.  Click on the "View
  > in File" link on  
  > the right side.  Then view the CSV file in Excel. 
  > This provides a view  
  > of the configured route plan in SQL.  If this
  > doesn't help then you  
  > will need to look at the dialing forest on the node
  > that the phone is  
  > registered to.  Follow these steps to dump the
  > dialing forest:
  > 
  > - Enable the "Dialing Forest Dump Enabled"
  > CallManager Service parameter
  > - Dial **##*4 on the IP Phone that is placing the
  > test call - you will  
  > hear reorder
  > - Search for "dialing forest" in the latest CCM
  > trace on the node the  
  > phone is registered to
  > 
  > Dumping the dialing forest can be CPU intensive in a
  > large network.  I  
  > have not had issues with this in smaller networks
  > but do be careful.
  > 
  > Kevin
  > 
  > On Sep 15, 2005, at 11:52 PM, Erick Bergquist wrote:
  > 
  > > Hi,
  > >
  > > Have an issue where it takes 10-12 seconds for a
  > call
  > > to get placed out a gateway. It is a ISDN PRI and
  > the
  > > debug isdn q931 doesn't show activity until 10-12
  > > seconds after the call is placed on IP Phone and
  > when
  > > we lower the T302 timer it gets placed to what
  > T302 is
  > > set to.
  > >
  > > There are no conflicting or overlapping route
  > patterns
  > > that we can find, and we put in a route pattern
  > for
  > > the full number with no wildcards and same thing.
  > >
  > > I've done a CCM detailed trace and am seeing large
  > > delay between when the phone dials the number and
  > when
  > > it gets processed. Theres like a good 12 seconds
  > in
  > > trace where the call reference is not listed.
  > >
  > > This is on CCM 4.02a SR2a.
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > 
  > > __________________________________
  > > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
  > > http://mail.yahoo.com
  > > _______________________________________________
  > > cisco-voip mailing list
  > > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
  > >
  > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
  > >
  > 
  > 


  __________________________________________________
  Do You Yahoo!?
  Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com 
  _______________________________________________
  cisco-voip mailing list
  cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
  https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20050916/9da6560d/attachment.html