[cisco-voip] Local Route Route Group Design

[paul dial]

Hi Dennis,

I ran into a similar situation and ended up moving the backup from the
RL to the RG.  For example, our Local Route Group is defined in the
Device Pool (DP).  So DP SFO would point to RG_SFO.   RG_SFO would
contain the primary destination for SFO and also a secondary location
(in some cases we have more than two members in the RG).  Likewise DP
NYC would point to RG_NYC which would contain the primary destination
for NYC and any back up locations. 

I believe that will allow you to keep just a single RP for \+! and your
RL would look like RL_LocalCalls  and just have the  Standard Local
Route Group as a member and uses the RG that is defined by the DP.   Not
sure if this is the best way of doing it or what the exact implications
are of moving the redundancy from the RL to the RG.

--paul


On 11/15/2013 5:45 AM, Heim, Dennis wrote:
>
> Has there been any thought of a Local Route List feature in addition
> or replacing the local route group option?
>
>  
>
> Here is my use case, if I am missing something, please let me know...
>
>  
>
> Dial Plan is E.164. We have translation patterns that normalize the
> Called number. From there the calls match at \+.! Route pattern the
> sends the call to the gateway.  The route list assigned to that route
> pattern includes the following members: (1) Standard Local Route Group
> (2) HQ-PSTN-RG.
>
>  
>
> The use case is this, what happens when we have regional or different
> secondary destinations? If we had some sites in the western US, that
> if their local circuits were unavailable we wanted the calls to go
> through a San Francisco regional site (SFO-PSTN-RG). At the same time,
> we had some sites in the eastern US, that if their local circuits were
> available we wanted the call to go through a New York regional site
> (NYC-PSTN-RG).  
>
>  
>
> As it is with local route group's, we would need to have multiple
> route pattern's \+.! Placed in different partitions, and assigned a
> different route list. For our example we would have the following:
>
> ·         Route List 1 (SFO)
>
> o   Standard Local Route Group
>
> o   SFO-PSTN-RG
>
> ·         Route List 2 (NYC)
>
> o   Standard Local Route Group
>
> o   NYC-PSTN-RG
>
>  
>
> In order to feed the local route group's, we would need  separate PSTN
> translation patterns (9.@), with separate partitions and calling
> search spaces to feed  the different \+.! Route pattern. Is that how
> others are handing this scenario?
>
>  
>
> If we had a local route list instead of local route group, then that
> could be specified on the device pool, and we could have one set of
> patterns and be able to easily manage multiple failure path's.
>
>  
>
> Thoughts?
>
>  
>
> *Dennis Heim | Solution Architect (Collaboration)*
>
> World Wide Technology, Inc. | 314-212-1814
>
>  
>
> */PS Engineering: /*/ Innovate & Ignite./
>
> * *
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131115/290d3746/attachment.html>