<div>Hey Mike,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Good question. I have been using Local Route Groups for a while now but in most of my cases I have only needed to use one GW with either one circuit or various circuits on the same GW. I have also added more than one GW to a Route Group as failover.</div>
<div>What I did on the GW's with more than one circuit for LD/Local is to prefix the outbound call.. Once it hits the GW then I send it out the correct circuit using that prefix. But if you have multiple GW's each carrying one type of Circuit then I think youre right and you cant use it that way. I havent ran across that yet so im only speculating.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hope that helps,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joel P.<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Mike Lydick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike.lydick@gmail.com">mike.lydick@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div>Is possible to consolidate both local and longdistance route patterns by using Local Route Groups, with separate LD and Local circuits? Seems that the Local Route Group is only effective with single route group.</div>
<div><br></div><br clear="all">Best Regards,<br><font color="#888888"><br>Mike Lydick<br><br><br></font><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>