[cisco-voip] called party transformations question

[Candace Holman]

Check the other parameters - partition and gateway would be important

here.  It looks like #1 is a duplicate of the function of #2, but set up 
correctly for partition and gateway, and allows longer dial strings to 
pass as 911 dial strings?  Another guess would be that someone wanted to 
trap calls that are misdialed as 911+the-rest-of the-number instead of 
91+the-rest-of-the-number, in #1, but it's misconfigured?  In other 
words, you really shouldn't route calls to 911 that are actually 
911+the-rest-of-the-number misdials (e.g., someone typed an extra 1 in 
the dial string when attempting an outbound call)  Are you sure it's not 
#2 that works and #1 is blocked?

If all else fails, turn on tracing on the CM and examine the trace file.

Candace
>
> Hello, can somebody tell me what the difference between these two 
> route pattern scenarios is: 
>
> 1.         911.
>
>             Discard digits: PreDot
>
>             Called party transformation mask: 9911
>
> 2.         911
>
>             Prefix digits (outgoing calls): 9 
>
> From what I can tell they should lead to the same result, but in 
> reality the first scenario works and sends the call to 911, the second 
> scenario gives an error tone. Yet the display of the calling device 
> shows 9911 in both cases. Any ideas? Thanks in advance.
>
>  
>