[cisco-voip] I need some feedback on the use of alternate enterprise number mask

[Scott Voll]

could you just use a translation pattern.  9130XXXXXXX translates to
130xxxxxxx.

Scott

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Barnett, Nick <
Nick.Barnett at countryfinancial.com> wrote:

> Here’s the scenario. Our HQ has been on CUCM for several years, but our
> field offices have their own pots KSU solutions. We are deploying IPT to
> the field offices as we speak. The field offices are consistently setting
> speed dials to call back to other on net DNs, but prefixing a 9. This
> causes the call to trombone and eats up call path and resources. No amount
> of training or bulletins to the field seems to work. They have been dialing
> 9 to reach HQ for decades.
>
>
>
> I’m aware that we should try and go full e164, but we have issues with
> non-did numbers and it is a fairly complex dialplan. I’ll get there, I just
> can’t do it right now.
>
>
>
> My idea is to use the alternate enterprise number mask on the DNs. We use
> 11 digit DNs, so the Alt number mask would like 9XXXXXXXXXXX. This gives a
> derived DN of 913095551234, which keeps the calls on net. Cool, mission
> accomplished… I think.
>
>
>
> Does this method cause any call processing issues? I’m slightly worried
> that it could raise processor usage… but I’m mostly just worried about it
> because it is “new” to me.
>
>
>
> Has anyone used the alt Ent number mask for this work around?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151029/fea8e292/attachment.html>