[cisco-voip] can't add gateway to route group when selected in a route pattern

[Wes Sisk]

it resets ccm's internal logical representation of the entity. that may the process identifier (pid) for routelist, h323 gateway, sip trunk, h323 ict. The reset of the logical device will cause calls to clear.  it applies to all protocols.

/wes

On May 11, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Tanner Ezell wrote:

Wouldn't this only affect MGCP gateways?

Cisco Unified Communications Manager 8: Expert Administration Cookbook now available! http://amzn.to/GH4NdI 

Connect with me on LinkedIn! linkd.in/Imju6x

On May 11, 2012, at 5:35 AM, Wes Sisk wrote:

> Ted,
> 
> Good Memory! That is indeed another side effect.  When an RP is updated then the associated device is reset.  When that device is a RL, a virtual device, there is no observed impact.  When that device is a gateway then, well, ....
> 
> /wes
> 
> On May 10, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Ted Nugent wrote:
> 
> I vaguely remember a post about this previously where Wes explained another reason why this is a bad idea. If i remember correctly if you make changes on the RP when it is directly pointed to a trunk it can reset the trunk and potentially drop calls... Wes correct me if I'm wrong on this or am remember something incorrectly.
> 
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> Yes, that's an option. But I'd rather not have to modify things to test.
> 
> We have 12 trunk groups and we have had occasion to have to test each of them. Moving things in and out of one trunk group is a bit of work.
> 
> Plus, the thought was to 'operationalize' the testing so anyone could test from a phone, and not have to go into the callmanager to make changes.
> 
> But your point is valid.
> 
> 
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. 
>                               - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
> 
> 
> From: "Scott Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> Cc: "Wes Sisk" <wsisk at cisco.com>, "cisco-voip voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:31:02 PM
> 
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] can't add gateway to route group when selected in a route pattern
> 
> just create a test RG.  use your special code to that RG and then it's just as simple as moving the GW into this special RG or out into production.
> 
> Scott
> 
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> ok. thanks for confirming the behaviour.
> 
> too bad, really. makes for additional work. not too much. but a bit.
> 
> 
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. 
>                               - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
> 
> 
> From: "Wes Sisk" <wsisk at cisco.com>
> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> Cc: "cisco-voip voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:27:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] can't add gateway to route group when selected in a route pattern
> 
> 
> That is correct in so far as it has been that way since version 2.4.
> 
> A gw can be in multiple RG. However, only one route pattern can point directly to a gateway. When that configuration the gw is not available for addition to a RG.
> 
> /wes
> 
> On May 10, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:
> 
> 
> Something that I've been wondering for a while is why, if I assign a gateway to a route pattern, can I no longer assign it to a route group? I like to be able to test trunks individually using special codes, i.e. *9-01-01-number for the first trunk group location and the first trunk. But to do this, I have to create route groups for _each_ trunk first.
> 
> Anyone come up with a better way to be able to test each trunk? That is, without having to modify things for each test?
> 
> Lelio
> 
> 
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. 
>                               - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120511/e355d941/attachment.html>