[cisco-voip] CUCM 7.x Local Route Group

[Joel Perez]

Hey Jonathan,

Yeah we use only CUBE's as GW's using SIP.
I have the SIP supplementary services already set up and the other options
under "voice service voip". Not sure what else to try.

Thanks,

Joel P



On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Jonathan Charles <jonvoip at gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, so the offnet to offnet, the call has two sip call legs... inbound and
> outbound.... (you are hairpinning...), right?
>
> Have you enabled an IPtoIP Gateway, I mean, a CUBE... or whatever Cisco is
> calling it this month?
>
> voice service voip
>  allow-connection sip to sip
>
> You may need to enable SIP supplementary services here ...
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>   On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Joel Perez <tman701 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>   Good morning list,
>>
>> I was curious if anyone out there has ran into this issue with Local Route
>> Groups.
>> We just started deploying this for customers recently. Im pretty sure I
>> have the process down packed except for one thing.
>> Call Forwarding to Offnet destinations. If the originating calls are onnet
>> within the clusters everything works fine. However If the originating call
>> is an offnet # then the call fails.
>>
>> On my SIP GW im getting a “SIP/2.0 404 Not Found Reason: Q.850;cause=1”.
>> Invite is sent to the CUCM cluster , GW gets a “100 Trying” and then the
>> 404. Ran some traces on CUCM and get the same thing. Read up a little more
>> on “Local Route Groups” and noticed a small section in the Features and
>> Services guide about forwarding. It states that supplementary services when
>> used skip the Local Route group. If there isn’t anything else in the RL
>> other than the Local Route Group then the call basically dies and you get
>> the 404. According to that same section the reason it works when the call
>> originates onnet is because the originating device uses its LRG assigned by
>> the Device Pool to send the call.
>> We tested by adding a RG with a GW in it and the Forwarding completed. We
>> also testing by creating a separate Partition and Route Pattern pointing to
>> the correct RG and the forwarding also completed.
>>
>> We would prefer not to have to create additional RP’s or add RG to the RL
>> containing the Local Route Group because it kind of defeats the purpose.
>> Granted, it will still shrink the required amount of RP’s considerably in
>> a multisite environment with multiple GW’s but still.
>> The Local Route Group has spoiled us and we want it all now.
>>
>> Are the above 2 solutions we found the only ones out there? We never ran
>> into it so far because our customers have been blocking offnet to offnet
>> forwarding. But there is always one that changes the way you do things.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joel P
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20100226/d7f50ab0/attachment.html>