OK, so the offnet to offnet, the call has two sip call legs... inbound and outbound.... (you are hairpinning...), right?<br><br>Have you enabled an IPtoIP Gateway, I mean, a CUBE... or whatever Cisco is calling it this month?<br>
<br>voice service voip<br> allow-connection sip to sip<br><br>You may need to enable SIP supplementary services here ...<br><br><br><br>Jonathan<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Joel Perez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tman701@gmail.com">tman701@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div>Good morning list,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I was curious if anyone out there has ran into this issue with Local Route Groups.<br>We just started deploying this for customers recently. Im pretty sure I have the process down packed except for one thing.<br>
Call Forwarding to Offnet destinations. If the originating calls are onnet within the clusters everything works fine. However If the originating call is an offnet # then the call fails.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On my SIP GW im getting a “SIP/2.0 404 Not Found Reason: Q.850;cause=1”. Invite is sent to the CUCM cluster , GW gets a “100 Trying” and then the 404. Ran some traces on CUCM and get the same thing. Read up a little more on “Local Route Groups” and noticed a small section in the Features and Services guide about forwarding. It states that supplementary services when used skip the Local Route group. If there isn’t anything else in the RL other than the Local Route Group then the call basically dies and you get the 404. According to that same section the reason it works when the call originates onnet is because the originating device uses its LRG assigned by the Device Pool to send the call.<br>
We tested by adding a RG with a GW in it and the Forwarding completed. We also testing by creating a separate Partition and Route Pattern pointing to the correct RG and the forwarding also completed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We would prefer not to have to create additional RP’s or add RG to the RL containing the Local Route Group because it kind of defeats the purpose.<br>Granted, it will still shrink the required amount of RP’s considerably in a multisite environment with multiple GW’s but still. <br>
The Local Route Group has spoiled us and we want it all now. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Are the above 2 solutions we found the only ones out there? We never ran into it so far because our customers have been blocking offnet to offnet forwarding. But there is always one that changes the way you do things.<br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Joel P<br></div>
<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" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>