Mailing List Archive: Cisco: VOIP

Local Route Groups and Call Forwarding

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

nmarus at gmail

Nov 18, 2009, 8:18 AM

Post #1 of 4 (458 views)
Permalink

Local Route Groups and Call Forwarding

When using local route groups (lrg) with call forwarding. CM7.13 seems to
send the forwarded call out the originating device and likewise screws up
local/longdistance dialing.

Example, user A in atlanta has phone forwarded to 10 digit local (9+10)
number. call forward css utilizes local route groups. user B in newyork,
calls user A, and the call attempts to dial out the ny gateway (9+10). It
fails as the 10 digit number is not dialable from ny and would need to be
11.

Is there a way around this? without creating new cfwd-css for the phones,
which would imo nullify any advantage of lrg.

Thanks,

--
Nick Marus
nmarus [at] gmail

rratliff at cisco

Nov 18, 2009, 9:04 AM

Post #2 of 4 (406 views)
Permalink

Re: Local Route Groups and Call Forwarding [In reply to]

It's not an LRG issue as much as your dialplan not taking this situation into account. You can use called party transformations to manipulate digits all kinds of ways. For example on your New York gateway you have a transformation pattern that says if the called party number is 10 digits but doesn't start with 212, prefix a 1 onto it.

You could also use toll bypass and let all calls to the Atlanta numbers route as 10 digit calls via your Atlanta gateway.

-Ryan

On Nov 18, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Nick Marus wrote:

When using local route groups (lrg) with call forwarding. CM7.13 seems to send the forwarded call out the originating device and likewise screws up local/longdistance dialing.

Example, user A in atlanta has phone forwarded to 10 digit local (9+10) number. call forward css utilizes local route groups. user B in newyork, calls user A, and the call attempts to dial out the ny gateway (9+10). It fails as the 10 digit number is not dialable from ny and would need to be 11.

Is there a way around this? without creating new cfwd-css for the phones, which would imo nullify any advantage of lrg.

Thanks,

--
Nick Marus
nmarus [at] gmail
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

nmarus at gmail

Nov 18, 2009, 10:53 AM

Post #3 of 4 (405 views)
Permalink

Re: Local Route Groups and Call Forwarding [In reply to]

That makes sence, and I do understand all that. Normalizing dialpatterns
etc. But I guess my question is how does this make it easier than using the
traditional way w/o LRG? Seems to involve just as much, if not more, effort
to account for all these other types of calls.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Ryan Ratliff <rratliff [at] cisco> wrote:

> It's not an LRG issue as much as your dialplan not taking this situation
> into account. You can use called party transformations to manipulate digits
> all kinds of ways. For example on your New York gateway you have a
> transformation pattern that says if the called party number is 10 digits but
> doesn't start with 212, prefix a 1 onto it.
>
> You could also use toll bypass and let all calls to the Atlanta numbers
> route as 10 digit calls via your Atlanta gateway.
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Nov 18, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Nick Marus wrote:
>
> When using local route groups (lrg) with call forwarding. CM7.13 seems to
> send the forwarded call out the originating device and likewise screws up
> local/longdistance dialing.
>
> Example, user A in atlanta has phone forwarded to 10 digit local (9+10)
> number. call forward css utilizes local route groups. user B in newyork,
> calls user A, and the call attempts to dial out the ny gateway (9+10). It
> fails as the 10 digit number is not dialable from ny and would need to be
> 11.
>
> Is there a way around this? without creating new cfwd-css for the phones,
> which would imo nullify any advantage of lrg.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Nick Marus
> nmarus [at] gmail
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>

--
Nick Marus
nmarus [at] gmail

Dennis.Heim at cdw

Nov 18, 2009, 10:57 AM

Post #4 of 4 (399 views)
Permalink

Re: Local Route Groups and Call Forwarding [In reply to]

One of the biggest reasons for Local Route Groups is the stubborn CER BU. Prior to local route groups there was no way to route calls out the local gateway if CER failed... thus local route groups were born. :)

Dennis Heim
Network Voice Engineer
CDW Advanced Technology Services
11711 N. Meridian Street, Suite 225
Carmel, IN 46032

317.569.4255 Office
317.569.4201 Fax
317.694.6070 Cell
dennis.heim [at] cdw<mailto:dennis.heim [at] cdw>
www.berbee.com<http://www.berbee.com/>

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Nick Marus
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 1:53 PM
To: Ryan Ratliff
Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck-nether
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Local Route Groups and Call Forwarding

That makes sence, and I do understand all that. Normalizing dialpatterns etc. But I guess my question is how does this make it easier than using the traditional way w/o LRG? Seems to involve just as much, if not more, effort to account for all these other types of calls.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Ryan Ratliff <rratliff [at] cisco<mailto:rratliff [at] cisco>> wrote:
It's not an LRG issue as much as your dialplan not taking this situation into account. You can use called party transformations to manipulate digits all kinds of ways. For example on your New York gateway you have a transformation pattern that says if the called party number is 10 digits but doesn't start with 212, prefix a 1 onto it.

You could also use toll bypass and let all calls to the Atlanta numbers route as 10 digit calls via your Atlanta gateway.

-Ryan

On Nov 18, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Nick Marus wrote:

When using local route groups (lrg) with call forwarding. CM7.13 seems to send the forwarded call out the originating device and likewise screws up local/longdistance dialing.

Example, user A in atlanta has phone forwarded to 10 digit local (9+10) number. call forward css utilizes local route groups. user B in newyork, calls user A, and the call attempts to dial out the ny gateway (9+10). It fails as the 10 digit number is not dialable from ny and would need to be 11.

Is there a way around this? without creating new cfwd-css for the phones, which would imo nullify any advantage of lrg.

Thanks,

--
Nick Marus
nmarus [at] gmail<mailto:nmarus [at] gmail>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

--
Nick Marus
nmarus [at] gmail<mailto:nmarus [at] gmail>

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads