[cisco-voip] Local Route Groups and Call Forwarding

[Nick Marus]

That makes sence, and I do understand all that. Normalizing dialpatterns
etc. But I guess my question is how does this make it easier than using the
traditional way w/o LRG? Seems to involve just as much, if not more, effort
to account for all these other types of calls.



On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Ryan Ratliff <rratliff at cisco.com> wrote:

> It's not an LRG issue as much as your dialplan not taking this situation
> into account.  You can use called party transformations to manipulate digits
> all kinds of ways.  For example on your New York gateway you have a
> transformation pattern that says if the called party number is 10 digits but
> doesn't start with 212, prefix a 1 onto it.
>
> You could also use toll bypass and let all calls to the Atlanta numbers
> route as 10 digit calls via your Atlanta gateway.
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Nov 18, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Nick Marus wrote:
>
> When using local route groups (lrg) with call forwarding. CM7.13 seems to
> send the forwarded call out the originating device and likewise screws up
> local/longdistance dialing.
>
> Example, user A in atlanta has phone forwarded to 10 digit local (9+10)
> number. call forward css utilizes local route groups. user B in newyork,
> calls user A, and the call attempts to dial out the ny gateway (9+10). It
> fails as the 10 digit number is not dialable from ny and would need to be
> 11.
>
> Is there a way around this? without creating new cfwd-css for the phones,
> which would imo nullify any advantage of lrg.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Nick Marus
> nmarus at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>


-- 
Nick Marus
nmarus at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20091118/e5f7bc89/attachment.html>