[cisco-voip] AAR vs. Route Lists

[Ahmed Elnagar]

Hello;

 

I never use the AAR feature before, but something came to my mind. Maybe
the AAR can achieve the following (that RL cannot):

 

When the call is rejected due to not enough bandwidth on the WAN link
don't send the call through the PSTN.

When the call is rejected due to WAN failure send the call through the
PSTN.

 

I am not sure of it, I am just assuming.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Kelemen Zoltan
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:30 AM
To: Cisco VoIP
Subject: [cisco-voip] AAR vs. Route Lists

 

Hi,

 

this may be a noob question to some of you, but there's something I 

don't quite understand:

 don't Route Lists provide the same (or rather - similar) functionality 

as AAR? If not (and I suppose not) what's the difference?

 

Case in point:

  We have a client with three CCM clusters, all connected through ICTs. 

We haven't used AAR so far, but the calls are routed through Route 

Lists: the trunk is the first route group, but if that fails, calls are 

redirected to the PSTN route group with appropriate transform masks for 

called and calling numbers.

 

If the IP trunk is congested, shouldn't the calls be rerouted to the 

PSTN anyway? (even though AAR is not set)

 

thanks,

  Zoltan

_______________________________________________

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/20071002/33462208/attachment.html