[cisco-voip] Dial Plan

[Granger, Simon]

Thanks for the comments, one of the reasons they are suggesting the change is because of the single number reach only showing the DN if they phone a person in another ipt office, it is not then redialable because it is not prefixed with an 8 on their phone, any thoughts on that? That was my single number reach question a couple of posts earlier.

Thanks again



On 19 Aug 2009, at 16:53, "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

I summarized the theory quite a bit. In his presentations, it all makes sense.

---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt


----- Original Message -----
From: "Voice Noob" <voicenoob at gmail.com<mailto:voicenoob at gmail.com>>
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>>, "Simon Granger" <simon.granger at fmglobal.com<mailto:simon.granger at fmglobal.com>>
Cc: <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:48:29 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Dial Plan

What do you do if you can’t get DID numbers at some locations? Sounds like that guy lives in the world of “theory” . ☺

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:21 AM
To: Simon Granger
Cc: <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Dial Plan

Yeah, not sure about that. Have you ever attended any of the Frenchman (well, I think Quebecois anyways) Luc Bouchard's dial plan design sessions?

I think he goes on to say, for a truly international dial plan, every DN is going to have the DID number itself as DN. And then you use translations to access them, just as you said.

I'd stick with translation patterns like you have.

---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt


----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Granger" <simon.granger at fmglobal.com<mailto:simon.granger at fmglobal.com>>
To: <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:04:38 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [cisco-voip] Dial Plan


We have had Call Manager 6.1 in place globally.  Clusters are based  Europe, US and Asia.  Our Global design and dial plan was designed in conjunction with Cisco Advanced Services 2 years ago.

Essentially all internal numbers are unique.  They consist of 7 digits.  This comprises 3 digits for an internal site code and 4 digits for site extension which is the last 4 digits of the DDI.  The design encompasses partitioned addressing scheme.  Internal intersite dialling is accomplished via dialling an access code of 8 followed by the 7 digit extension number.  This works via translation pattern of translating 8 to 7 digits where the translation pattern has the access to the partition of the dialled 7 digit extension in another site.  Internal dialing within a site is 4 digits by translation pattern of 4 to 7 digits of the actual real DN.

Our re-seller in the US is stating this is not best practice.  They want to change the dial plan so all DN’s are now 8 digits and not 7 beginning with 8.  They want to remove the Translation pattern and give direct access across all DNs.  They state this change will be good for the future.

We in Europe are sceptical of such a change.  We believe this removes a lot of the flexibility of the original dial plan.  Also it cause problems if we want to impose any Class of Restriction.  We have also not seen anywhere that this would be best practice.

If anyone has any thoughts it would be most appreciated.


Thanks



________________________________
Registered No. 755780 England
Registered Office: FM Insurance Company Limited
1 Windsor Dials, Windsor,
Berkshire, UK, SL4 1RS
Regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
VAT No. G.B.: 792 4276 02

_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip