[cisco-voip] Differences between MGCP / H323 in handling unknown (not configured) extension numbers in callmanager

[Fuermann, Jason]

Don't have anything to test this with, and it's been a while since I've done an h323 dial-plan,  but couldn't you just apply a reject rule for your DIDs pattern?

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ki Wi
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:40 PM
To: Scott Voll
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Differences between MGCP / H323 in handling unknown (not configured) extension numbers in callmanager

Is there any other way? I'm aware that I can use route pattern to make some announcement by blocking the pattern.

Is it some sort of limitation with H323?
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com<mailto:svoll.voip at gmail.com>> wrote:
I like to use a XXXX wild card pattern that I shot over to VM that says this number is not in use or  forward them to the Operator.

Scott
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Ki Wi <kiwi.voice at gmail.com<mailto:kiwi.voice at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Group,
According to my memory there's some differences as per topic

Something like when a voice gateway using MGCP , incoming call to when the unknown extension number in callmanager. Caller will get a message to say that the number is not in used. (by telco)

While using H323, the call is passed to callmanager. The call will keep ringing.

Does anyone experience it before? Is there anyway to fix the problem?

_______________________________________________
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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20100719/08bd58ef/attachment.html>