[cisco-voip] Question about Local Route Group feature

[Ed Leatherman]

Thanks everyone

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:56 PM, NateCCIE <nateccie at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yep, it will work just like that.
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf
> Of *Ed Leatherman
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 27, 2015 1:15 PM
> *To:* Cisco VOIP <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Question about Local Route Group feature
>
>
>
> Hello!
>
>
>
> I actually haven't had to make significant dial plan/gateway changes since
> local route group feature got introduced, starting to plan some bigger
> changes and think this might be a good tool for me to use.
>
>
>
> Right now i'm thinking migration strategies for moving folks onto SIP
> trunk from PRI.
>
>
>
> If I have a Route List that has:
>
> 1. Standard Local Route Group
>
> 2. Existing Route Group #1
>
> 3. Existing Route Group #2
>
>
>
> If a device pool doesn't have anything setup for Standard Local Route
> Group, when someone from that pool calls a route pattern referencing this
> Route List will it just smoothly go to option #2 or is there some gotcha
> i'm not grasping?
>
>
>
> My thoughts are to migrate folks by device pool and reuse my existing dial
> plan with new SIP trunks added using standard local route group feature and
> placed into existing Route Lists as the first option. Folks that have
> nothing set for standard local route group just flow through to the
> existing options.
>
>
>
> This way I don't have as many weird transition route patterns/dial
> plans/etc. Eventually I'd get rid of the legacy route groups referencing
> PRI's and then i'd be smoothly (mostly) onto local route group paradigm,
> which appears to be the way to go anyway.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ed Leatherman
>



-- 
Ed Leatherman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20150827/67327a52/attachment.html>