<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1515" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>We went with a 9.@ with local area code does not
exist filter and then added another with a filter that of local area code =
519. (our local area code) We basically let the PSTN notify the user if they
dialed a number not in our exchange etc. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Our dial plan consists entirely of 9.@ with filters
rather than the manual entry of the 9.[2-9]XXXXXX sorta thing. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I spoke to a number of TAC engineers at Networkers
and CIPTUG and couldn't get a straight answer as to which is better or worse or
if there are any caveats to choosing one over the other.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I wouldn't mind hearing comments from the group
about the two options.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=erickbe@yahoo.com href="mailto:erickbe@yahoo.com">Erick Bergquist</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=kthorngr@cisco.com
href="mailto:kthorngr@cisco.com">Kevin Thorngren</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, September 16, 2005 10:50
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [cisco-voip] Interdigit
timeout issue for 7 digit calls </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>Kevin,<BR><BR>Thanks. Yea, it does say ExclusivelyOffnet
matches<BR>exist.<BR><BR>Here is the info from the route list, view in file
for<BR>route patterns for call that are overlapping<BR>(overlooked this before
for some reason, didn't
catch<BR>it).<BR><BR>9.[2-9]XX[2-9]XXXXXX,,PT-10-DIGIT-DIALING,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL<BR>9.[2-9]XX976XXXX,,PT-BLOCKED-TELESCAMS,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL<BR>9.[2-9]XXXXXX,,PT-7-DIGIT-DIALING,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL<BR><BR>Is
there a better way to make the 7 digit dialing rule<BR>other then using rules
for each local prefix? IE:<BR>9.296XXXX, etc?<BR><BR>BTW, We also put in a
route pattern of 9.2791234 and<BR>still had issue and traces used that
pattern. Or would<BR>that overlap with the 10 digit pattern
still?<BR><BR>Thanks<BR><BR>--- Kevin Thorngren <<A
href="mailto:kthorngr@cisco.com">kthorngr@cisco.com</A>> wrote:<BR><BR>>
Hi Erick,<BR>> <BR>> In the CCM trace look for the Digit
Analysis<BR>> Results, for example:<BR>> <BR>> 09/15/2005
16:37:19.435 CCM|Digit analysis: analysis<BR>>
<BR>><BR>results|<CLID::StandAloneCluster><NID::10.10.10.3><CT::<BR>>
<BR>><BR>1,100,119,1.499977><IP::10.10.21.7><DEV::SEP00115CBAD09E><BR>>
09/15/2005 16:37:19.435<BR>>
CCM||PretransformCallingPartyNumber=9193<BR>>
|CallingPartyNumber=9193<BR>> |DialingPartition=par-internal<BR>>
|DialingPattern=9190<BR>>
|DialingRoutePatternRegularExpression=(9190)<BR>> |DialingWhere=<BR>>
|PatternType=Enterprise<BR>>
|PotentialMatches=NoPotentialMatchesExist<BR>> <BR>> If it has
PotentialMatches=NoPotentialMatchesExist<BR>> then CCM does not
<BR>> have any other patterns it can match. If it has<BR>>
something else, such <BR>> as PotentialMatches=PotentialMatchesExist
or
<BR>><BR>PotentialMatches=ExclusivelyOffnetPotentialMatchesExist,<BR>>
then this <BR>> means CCM has matched a pattern but can match
other<BR>> patterns if more <BR>> digits are dialed.<BR>>
<BR>> The easiest way I have found to find overlapping<BR>> patterns is
to go to <BR>> Route Plan > Route Plan Report. Click on the
"View<BR>> in File" link on <BR>> the right side. Then view
the CSV file in Excel. <BR>> This provides a view <BR>> of the
configured route plan in SQL. If this<BR>> doesn't help then
you <BR>> will need to look at the dialing forest on the node<BR>>
that the phone is <BR>> registered to. Follow these steps to
dump the<BR>> dialing forest:<BR>> <BR>> - Enable the "Dialing Forest
Dump Enabled"<BR>> CallManager Service parameter<BR>> - Dial **##*4 on
the IP Phone that is placing the<BR>> test call - you will <BR>>
hear reorder<BR>> - Search for "dialing forest" in the latest CCM<BR>>
trace on the node the <BR>> phone is registered to<BR>> <BR>>
Dumping the dialing forest can be CPU intensive in a<BR>> large
network. I <BR>> have not had issues with this in smaller
networks<BR>> but do be careful.<BR>> <BR>> Kevin<BR>> <BR>> On
Sep 15, 2005, at 11:52 PM, Erick Bergquist wrote:<BR>> <BR>> >
Hi,<BR>> ><BR>> > Have an issue where it takes 10-12 seconds for
a<BR>> call<BR>> > to get placed out a gateway. It is a ISDN PRI
and<BR>> the<BR>> > debug isdn q931 doesn't show activity until
10-12<BR>> > seconds after the call is placed on IP Phone and<BR>>
when<BR>> > we lower the T302 timer it gets placed to what<BR>> T302
is<BR>> > set to.<BR>> ><BR>> > There are no conflicting or
overlapping route<BR>> patterns<BR>> > that we can find, and we put
in a route pattern<BR>> for<BR>> > the full number with no wildcards
and same thing.<BR>> ><BR>> > I've done a CCM detailed trace and
am seeing large<BR>> > delay between when the phone dials the number
and<BR>> when<BR>> > it gets processed. Theres like a good 12
seconds<BR>> in<BR>> > trace where the call reference is not
listed.<BR>> ><BR>> > This is on CCM 4.02a SR2a.<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > <BR>> >
__________________________________<BR>> > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine
Editors' Choice 2005<BR>> > <A
href="http://mail.yahoo.com">http://mail.yahoo.com</A><BR>> >
_______________________________________________<BR>> > cisco-voip
mailing list<BR>> > <A
href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</A><BR>>
><BR>> <A
href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</A><BR>>
><BR>> <BR>>
<BR><BR><BR>__________________________________________________<BR>Do You
Yahoo!?<BR>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
around <BR><A href="http://mail.yahoo.com">http://mail.yahoo.com</A>
<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>cisco-voip mailing
list<BR><A
href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</A><BR><A
href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>