[cisco-voip] sending 999 calls via the FXO in both CUCM and SRST mode
Abbas Wali
abbaseo at gmail.com
Fri Aug 24 16:15:59 EDT 2012
Ted
That's brilliant
I just tried that and it worked
Thanks very much for the explanation
And to you too Mike
Now we ve to properly design our DPools which are in a mess
Sent from my iPhone
On 24 Aug 2012, at 16:25, Ted Nugent <tednugent73 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ok regardless of whether you have H323 or MGCP you can have ONE single 999 route pattern that points to a RL with the local route group. You will create a single RG for every site and place in the Gateway ( if H323) or the Ports (If MGCP) and then place that RG in the sites Device Pool...
> If your CM is configured correctly to scale and accomadate EM (Line/Device) approach then emergency calls following the physical phone and not the users EM profile.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 7:04 AM, abbas Wali <abbaseo at gmail.com> wrote:
> yes Ted, something like that.
>
> we have a centralized MGCP gateways and CUCM's.
> these DP's are planned to be deployed on the local routers in case there is an wan outage so that they can refer to their local H323 dial peers.
>
> FXO card can route all the calls including 999 when the site is not connected but the issue is that when the site is back up , the phone sends everything to the CUCM who routes the call from the central office Q931 channels. when the site is connected the phone ignors the local dial peers.
> now our SRST goes fine with that but for the emergency responder we are not getting what we want.
>
> Norton, I Know what you mean and I was suspectin the same answer. The issue with that is just alot of admin and redesigning the CSS and Partitions along with the D. Pools. Our current CM was managed very poorly (obviously before i joined :) so we have very centralized CSS and DP's.
>
> also, we have Extension Mobility. users jumps around all over the place. The note about your local Device CSS and Centalize DN CSS is also very interesting.
>
> I think we have to go back to the drawing board.
>
> thanks for the help guys
>
> On 24 August 2012 02:28, Ted Nugent <tednugent73 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Very much confussed as to what you're trying to accomplish now, perhap I'm missing something? Your system is configured for MGCP judging from the dialpeers? you either have an aggregate PRI bank for outbound calls or SIP trunks or something and you want to use local FXO ports for 999? Is that close? If that is correct then, as Nate mentioned, why not just create a single 999 pattern pointing to the local RG which would contain the FXO ports for that site... Yes that is 150 RGs but it will work? Perhaps I missed something? If so please clarify.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM, abbas Wali <abbaseo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for that Nate, But I was under the impression that when a phone even though regestered with the Centralized CUCM, still realizing that for the 999 pattern there is a local dial peer which is under the H323 control and therefore he doesnt need to go to the CM.
>
> we have around 150 sites, which wil mean that we have to configure 150 RP on the CUCM for that. which is messy, veryyyy messy
>
>
> On 24 August 2012 00:27, Norton, Mike <mikenorton at pwsd76.ab.ca> wrote:
> Even if you were to manage to make the port be H.323, I’m not seeing what that would accomplish. You’d still need to do something in CUCM in order for CUCM to know to send the calls from certain phones to that specific H.323 gateway.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mike Norton
>
> I.T. Support
>
> Peace Wapiti School Division No. 76
>
> Helpdesk: 780-831-3080
>
> Direct: 780-831-3076
>
>
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of abbas Wali
> Sent: August-23-12 4:06 PM
> To: Nate VanMaren
>
>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] sending 999 calls via the FXO in both CUCM and SRST mode
>
>
> Scott,
>
>
>
> we want not to get more hardware or providers on this.
>
>
>
> I heard somewhere, that you can configure a Voice Gateway such that one interface is controlled by MGCP another is H323 and so on.
>
>
>
> so if I can somehow control that FXO on H323 then that can use the local dial peers no matter what.
>
>
>
> So the million dollar questions becomes how to have this one FXO interface controlled by an H323 in an MGCP gateway!!!!!!!!!
>
> On 23 August 2012 21:19, Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP at ldschurch.org> wrote:
>
> Local route group?
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Scott Voll
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:10 PM
> To: abbas Wali
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] sending 999 calls via the FXO in both CUCM and SRST mode
>
>
>
> if you want an easier solution, use a sip e911 provider and let them route it.
>
>
>
> otherwise yes, create a site_911 partition and add it to the site CSS with a 911 RP in that site_911 partion.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:47 PM, abbas Wali <abbaseo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I have to configure an FXO line for 999 calls.
>
>
>
> okay this works fine when i am in SRST mode and I have application global alternate default ON with
>
>
>
> dial-peer voice 999 pots
>
> description EMERGENCY
>
> destination-pattern 999
>
> port 0/1/0
>
> forward-digits all
>
>
>
> and for incoming calls
>
>
>
> voice-port 0/1/0
>
> echo-cancel coverage 64
>
> cptone GB
>
> timing hookflash-out 50
>
> connection plar opx 61234
>
> impedance complex2
>
>
>
> where 61234 is an extension.
>
>
>
> the only issue is when the CUCM comes back in that FXO re-registeres with CUCM as
>
>
>
> dial-peer voice 999010 pots
>
> preference 1
>
> service MGCPAPP
>
> port 0/1/0
>
>
>
> again incoming calls wil work fine as I have an Attendent DN configured. but for the outgoing calls I only want it to use the local FXO
>
> (for the emergency services to trunup at the right location)
>
>
>
> I wonder if that can only be done in the CUCM as configuring local 999 route pattern and limiting the phones to use them in any case!!
>
> we have alot of site and that will be alot of work on the CUCM.
>
>
>
> isnt there a better way!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> thanks for the help
>
>
>
> A
>
>
> --
> @bbas..
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> @bbas..
>
>
>
>
> --
> @bbas..
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> @bbas..
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20120824/f6dcf069/attachment.html>
More information about the cisco-voip
mailing list