<!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 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It's interesting, I just got feedback from my SE
who said 40,000 max on 4.1(x). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Quite honestly, I don't think it's a matter of how
many entries are in the table but rather how many are being used at the same
time. I'm sure SQL tables can easily handle thousands, if not hundreds of
thousands of entries. I'm also pretty sure that the FAC/CMC tables are indexed
so lookups should be relatively quick as well.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think what happens is that someone says, "hmm,
how many FACs/CMCs do you think anyone will ever use?" and someone else says "i
can't imagine anyone ever using more than 40,000" and that's what they base
their testing on. I've been in a few of the CIPTUG sessions (and from being on
the FAC committee) and they've mentioned that they are going to try harder to
bring customers in on the design stages for stuff like this. Hopefully that
happens soon.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For me, a variable length FAC is not nearly as
important as getting rid of the interdigit delay. Now my users have to press FAC
plus # where they didn't before. Not a big deal, but a service parameter with
"fixed FAC" or "fixed CMC" would have been great.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></rant></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=baryonyx5@gmail.com href="mailto:baryonyx5@gmail.com">Kris
Seraphine</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</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> Monday, January 30, 2006 4:59
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [cisco-voip] Re: Client matter
code limits</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I posted the question to the partner help desk and they gave me
the OK on 100,000 CMCs. <BR><BR>I'll import them this evening and we'll
see what happens. <BR><BR>It sure would be nice if you could use
wildcards in the CMC configuration... <BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 1/27/06, <B class=gmail_sendername>Kris
Seraphine</B> <<A
href="mailto:baryonyx5@gmail.com">baryonyx5@gmail.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">Hi<BR><BR>I
have a client that currently uses ATT to provide non-authenticated client
matter codes for billing back customers. Whenever the customer places
a long distance call, the caller must enter a 5 digit number before the call
will go through. ATT will accept any 5 digit number. It looks
like the Callmanager implementation of CMC requires each code to be defined
in the database (and wildcards are not allowed) so to replicate this
functionality I'd need to import 100,000 codes. <BR><BR>I couldn't
find anything on CCO regarding an upper limit to the number of codes
supported but I'm not really excited about adding that many records to the
production database. <BR><BR>Just wondering if anyone has been down
this path before. <BR><BR>thanks<BR clear=all><BR>-- <BR><SPAN class=sg>kris
seraphine </SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR clear=all><BR>-- <BR>kris
seraphine
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>cisco-voip mailing
list<BR>cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<BR>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>