Mailing List Archive: Cisco: VOIP

FW: CUCM Route List

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

MMarquez at goldsys

Nov 18, 2009, 1:29 PM

Post #1 of 11 (927 views)
Permalink

FW: CUCM Route List

Here is some supplemental information regarding my previous email. Here is a summary of the problem.

RouteList-1
H323-HW-RG
MGCP-GW-RG

I make a call that uses Route List (RL-1). The first call is successful call via the H323-HW-RG. I then disconnect the T1 cable to the H323 GW (creating a failover scenario) and my second call fails over successfully to the MGCP-GW-RG. I make a third call, which again uses MGCP-GW-RG and the call fails. All other subsequent calls also fail.

I ran a CCM trace and I see that on the second call attempt (first screenshot below) the H323 GW (10.10.32.2) sends back a H.225 RELEASE_COMP message with Cause i = 0x08E089 - Temporary Failure. CUCM responds to this cause code by sending an MGCP CRCX message to the failover GW (10.10.32.1) thereby resulting in a successful call.

In the second screenshot where I made the third failed call attempt you'll notice that the H.323 GW also sends a RELEASE_COMP message but it has a different cause code Cause I = 0x080081 - Unallocated/Unassigned Number. As a result of this cause code CUCM does not send the MGCP CRCX message to the failover MGCP GW and the call ultimately fails. Any ideas on how to modify this behavior?

[cid:image001.png [at] 01CA6859]

[cid:image002.png [at] 01CA6859]

From: Mark Marquez
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 4:42 PM
To: 'cisco-voip [at] puck'
Subject: CUCM Route List

Are there any special rules regarding H.323 and MGCP gateways configured within the same CUCM Route List. I have a route list with two route groups. RG1 has the H.323 GW. RG2 has the MGCP GW.

RL-1
RG1 (H.323)
RG2 (MGCP)

In the above configuration, failover to the MGCP GW doesn't work.

RL-1
RG2 (MGCP)
RG1 (H.323)

I modify the Route List to include RG2 and then RG1 (as illustrated above) and failover works as expected. FYI, I cause a failover by unplugging the T1 cable from the controller.

I also tested just using RG1 or RG2 within RL-1 and calls complete successfully. Any help is appreciated.

Attachments:

image001.png (99.1 KB)

image002.png (97.1 KB)

george.hendrix at l-3com

Nov 18, 2009, 3:56 PM

Post #2 of 11 (892 views)
Permalink

Re: FW: CUCM Route List [In reply to]

You are seeing this because the T1 status on the h.323 gw isn't known to cucm. I believe what you would need to do is setup dial peers between the mgcp gw and the h.323 gw. Then on the h.323 gw put a higher preference on the T1 with the dial peer to the mgcp gw next.

Bill

________________________________

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck <cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>
To: cisco-voip [at] puck <cisco-voip [at] puck>
Sent: Wed Nov 18 16:29:20 2009
Subject: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

Here is some supplemental information regarding my previous email. Here is a summary of the problem.

RouteList-1

H323-HW-RG

MGCP-GW-RG

I make a call that uses Route List (RL-1). The first call is successful call via the H323-HW-RG. I then disconnect the T1 cable to the H323 GW (creating a failover scenario) and my second call fails over successfully to the MGCP-GW-RG. I make a third call, which again uses MGCP-GW-RG and the call fails. All other subsequent calls also fail.

I ran a CCM trace and I see that on the second call attempt (first screenshot below) the H323 GW (10.10.32.2) sends back a H.225 RELEASE_COMP message with Cause i = 0x08E089 – Temporary Failure. CUCM responds to this cause code by sending an MGCP CRCX message to the failover GW (10.10.32.1) thereby resulting in a successful call.

In the second screenshot where I made the third failed call attempt you’ll notice that the H.323 GW also sends a RELEASE_COMP message but it has a different cause code Cause I = 0x080081 – Unallocated/Unassigned Number. As a result of this cause code CUCM does not send the MGCP CRCX message to the failover MGCP GW and the call ultimately fails. Any ideas on how to modify this behavior?

From: Mark Marquez
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 4:42 PM
To: 'cisco-voip [at] puck'
Subject: CUCM Route List

Are there any special rules regarding H.323 and MGCP gateways configured within the same CUCM Route List. I have a route list with two route groups. RG1 has the H.323 GW. RG2 has the MGCP GW.

RL-1

RG1 (H.323)

RG2 (MGCP)

In the above configuration, failover to the MGCP GW doesn’t work.

RL-1

RG2 (MGCP)

RG1 (H.323)

I modify the Route List to include RG2 and then RG1 (as illustrated above) and failover works as expected. FYI, I cause a failover by unplugging the T1 cable from the controller.

I also tested just using RG1 or RG2 within RL-1 and calls complete successfully. Any help is appreciated.

Attachments:

image001.png (99.1 KB)

image002.png (97.1 KB)

george.hendrix at l-3com

Nov 18, 2009, 4:01 PM

Post #3 of 11 (892 views)
Permalink

Re: FW: CUCM Route List [In reply to]

Of course if the devices are totally interchangable with the same # of ports you can put the mgcp gw as your primary and since it registers with cucm, cucm will know if it is down.

Bill

________________________________

From: Hendrix, George (Bill) @ ITS
To: 'MMarquez [at] goldsys' <MMarquez [at] goldsys>; 'cisco-voip [at] puck' <cisco-voip [at] puck>
Sent: Wed Nov 18 18:56:17 2009
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

You are seeing this because the T1 status on the h.323 gw isn't known to cucm. I believe what you would need to do is setup dial peers between the mgcp gw and the h.323 gw. Then on the h.323 gw put a higher preference on the T1 with the dial peer to the mgcp gw next.

Bill

________________________________

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck <cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>
To: cisco-voip [at] puck <cisco-voip [at] puck>
Sent: Wed Nov 18 16:29:20 2009
Subject: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

Here is some supplemental information regarding my previous email. Here is a summary of the problem.

RouteList-1

H323-HW-RG

MGCP-GW-RG

I make a call that uses Route List (RL-1). The first call is successful call via the H323-HW-RG. I then disconnect the T1 cable to the H323 GW (creating a failover scenario) and my second call fails over successfully to the MGCP-GW-RG. I make a third call, which again uses MGCP-GW-RG and the call fails. All other subsequent calls also fail.

I ran a CCM trace and I see that on the second call attempt (first screenshot below) the H323 GW (10.10.32.2) sends back a H.225 RELEASE_COMP message with Cause i = 0x08E089 – Temporary Failure. CUCM responds to this cause code by sending an MGCP CRCX message to the failover GW (10.10.32.1) thereby resulting in a successful call.

In the second screenshot where I made the third failed call attempt you’ll notice that the H.323 GW also sends a RELEASE_COMP message but it has a different cause code Cause I = 0x080081 – Unallocated/Unassigned Number. As a result of this cause code CUCM does not send the MGCP CRCX message to the failover MGCP GW and the call ultimately fails. Any ideas on how to modify this behavior?

From: Mark Marquez
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 4:42 PM
To: 'cisco-voip [at] puck'
Subject: CUCM Route List

Are there any special rules regarding H.323 and MGCP gateways configured within the same CUCM Route List. I have a route list with two route groups. RG1 has the H.323 GW. RG2 has the MGCP GW.

RL-1

RG1 (H.323)

RG2 (MGCP)

In the above configuration, failover to the MGCP GW doesn’t work.

RL-1

RG2 (MGCP)

RG1 (H.323)

I modify the Route List to include RG2 and then RG1 (as illustrated above) and failover works as expected. FYI, I cause a failover by unplugging the T1 cable from the controller.

I also tested just using RG1 or RG2 within RL-1 and calls complete successfully. Any help is appreciated.

Attachments:

image001.png (99.1 KB)

image002.png (97.1 KB)

MMarquez at goldsys

Nov 18, 2009, 4:07 PM

Post #4 of 11 (898 views)
Permalink

Re: FW: CUCM Route List [In reply to]

I guess I wonder why the H.323 GW would send an appropriate response once(“temporary failure) and then not on subsequent calls (Unallocated/Unassigned Number). I would expect the unallocated/unassigned cause code if I sent the wrong digits or length of digits. The “temporary failure” cause code makes sense because the T1 is down.

I agree with you that switching the order of the RG’s fixes the issue but the GW’s are not interchangeable. Each GW is located at different sites.

From: george.hendrix [at] l-3com [mailto:george.hendrix [at] l-3com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:02 PM
To: Mark Marquez; cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

Of course if the devices are totally interchangable with the same # of ports you can put the mgcp gw as your primary and since it registers with cucm, cucm will know if it is down.

Bill

________________________________
From: Hendrix, George (Bill) @ ITS
To: 'MMarquez [at] goldsys' <MMarquez [at] goldsys>; 'cisco-voip [at] puck' <cisco-voip [at] puck>
Sent: Wed Nov 18 18:56:17 2009
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List
You are seeing this because the T1 status on the h.323 gw isn't known to cucm. I believe what you would need to do is setup dial peers between the mgcp gw and the h.323 gw. Then on the h.323 gw put a higher preference on the T1 with the dial peer to the mgcp gw next.

Bill

________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck <cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>
To: cisco-voip [at] puck <cisco-voip [at] puck>
Sent: Wed Nov 18 16:29:20 2009
Subject: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List
Here is some supplemental information regarding my previous email. Here is a summary of the problem.

RouteList-1
H323-HW-RG
MGCP-GW-RG

I make a call that uses Route List (RL-1). The first call is successful call via the H323-HW-RG. I then disconnect the T1 cable to the H323 GW (creating a failover scenario) and my second call fails over successfully to the MGCP-GW-RG. I make a third call, which again uses MGCP-GW-RG and the call fails. All other subsequent calls also fail.

I ran a CCM trace and I see that on the second call attempt (first screenshot below) the H323 GW (10.10.32.2) sends back a H.225 RELEASE_COMP message with Cause i = 0x08E089 – Temporary Failure. CUCM responds to this cause code by sending an MGCP CRCX message to the failover GW (10.10.32.1) thereby resulting in a successful call.

In the second screenshot where I made the third failed call attempt you’ll notice that the H.323 GW also sends a RELEASE_COMP message but it has a different cause code Cause I = 0x080081 – Unallocated/Unassigned Number. As a result of this cause code CUCM does not send the MGCP CRCX message to the failover MGCP GW and the call ultimately fails. Any ideas on how to modify this behavior?

[cid:image001.png [at] 01CA6871]

[cid:image002.png [at] 01CA6871]

From: Mark Marquez
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 4:42 PM
To: 'cisco-voip [at] puck'
Subject: CUCM Route List

Are there any special rules regarding H.323 and MGCP gateways configured within the same CUCM Route List. I have a route list with two route groups. RG1 has the H.323 GW. RG2 has the MGCP GW.

RL-1
RG1 (H.323)
RG2 (MGCP)

In the above configuration, failover to the MGCP GW doesn’t work.

RL-1
RG2 (MGCP)
RG1 (H.323)

I modify the Route List to include RG2 and then RG1 (as illustrated above) and failover works as expected. FYI, I cause a failover by unplugging the T1 cable from the controller.

I also tested just using RG1 or RG2 within RL-1 and calls complete successfully. Any help is appreciated.

Attachments:

image001.png (99.1 KB)

image002.png (97.1 KB)

rratliff at cisco

Nov 18, 2009, 7:21 PM

Post #5 of 11 (904 views)
Permalink

Re: FW: CUCM Route List [In reply to]

From the aforementioned service parameters...

-Ryan

On Nov 18, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Mark Marquez wrote:

Here is some supplemental information regarding my previous email. Here is a summary of the problem.

RouteList-1
H323-HW-RG
MGCP-GW-RG

I make a call that uses Route List (RL-1). The first call is successful call via the H323-HW-RG. I then disconnect the T1 cable to the H323 GW (creating a failover scenario) and my second call fails over successfully to the MGCP-GW-RG. I make a third call, which again uses MGCP-GW-RG and the call fails. All other subsequent calls also fail.

I ran a CCM trace and I see that on the second call attempt (first screenshot below) the H323 GW (10.10.32.2) sends back a H.225 RELEASE_COMP message with Cause i = 0x08E089 � Temporary Failure. CUCM responds to this cause code by sending an MGCP CRCX message to the failover GW (10.10.32.1) thereby resulting in a successful call.

In the second screenshot where I made the third failed call attempt you�ll notice that the H.323 GW also sends a RELEASE_COMP message but it has a different cause code Cause I = 0x080081 � Unallocated/Unassigned Number. As a result of this cause code CUCM does not send the MGCP CRCX message to the failover MGCP GW and the call ultimately fails. Any ideas on how to modify this behavior?

<image001.png>

<image002.png>

From: Mark Marquez
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 4:42 PM
To: 'cisco-voip [at] puck'
Subject: CUCM Route List

Are there any special rules regarding H.323 and MGCP gateways configured within the same CUCM Route List. I have a route list with two route groups. RG1 has the H.323 GW. RG2 has the MGCP GW.

RL-1
RG1 (H.323)
RG2 (MGCP)

In the above configuration, failover to the MGCP GW doesn�t work.

RL-1
RG2 (MGCP)
RG1 (H.323)

I modify the Route List to include RG2 and then RG1 (as illustrated above) and failover works as expected. FYI, I cause a failover by unplugging the T1 cable from the controller.

I also tested just using RG1 or RG2 within RL-1 and calls complete successfully. Any help is appreciated.

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

Attachments:

routing-sp.png (29.8 KB)

MMarquez at goldsys

Nov 19, 2009, 7:49 AM

Post #6 of 11 (888 views)
Permalink

Re: FW: CUCM Route List [In reply to]

Thanks Ryan, that was the fix. I overlooked that setting. I was focusing under H.323 Clusterwide Parameters.

Mark Marquez
Unified Communications Specialist
Gold Systems, Inc.
4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite #106
Boulder, Colorado 80301
303.447.2774 say "Mark Marquez"
mmarquez [at] goldsys<mailto:loui [at] goldsys>

From: Ryan Ratliff [mailto:rratliff [at] cisco]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:22 PM
To: Mark Marquez
Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

>From the aforementioned service parameters...
[cid:image001.png [at] 01CA68F5]
-Ryan

On Nov 18, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Mark Marquez wrote:

Here is some supplemental information regarding my previous email. Here is a summary of the problem.

RouteList-1
H323-HW-RG
MGCP-GW-RG

I make a call that uses Route List (RL-1). The first call is successful call via the H323-HW-RG. I then disconnect the T1 cable to the H323 GW (creating a failover scenario) and my second call fails over successfully to the MGCP-GW-RG. I make a third call, which again uses MGCP-GW-RG and the call fails. All other subsequent calls also fail.

I ran a CCM trace and I see that on the second call attempt (first screenshot below) the H323 GW (10.10.32.2) sends back a H.225 RELEASE_COMP message with Cause i = 0x08E089 - Temporary Failure. CUCM responds to this cause code by sending an MGCP CRCX message to the failover GW (10.10.32.1) thereby resulting in a successful call.

In the second screenshot where I made the third failed call attempt you'll notice that the H.323 GW also sends a RELEASE_COMP message but it has a different cause code Cause I = 0x080081 - Unallocated/Unassigned Number. As a result of this cause code CUCM does not send the MGCP CRCX message to the failover MGCP GW and the call ultimately fails. Any ideas on how to modify this behavior?

<image001.png>

<image002.png>

From: Mark Marquez
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 4:42 PM
To: 'cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:'cisco-voip [at] puck>'
Subject: CUCM Route List

Are there any special rules regarding H.323 and MGCP gateways configured within the same CUCM Route List. I have a route list with two route groups. RG1 has the H.323 GW. RG2 has the MGCP GW.

RL-1
RG1 (H.323)
RG2 (MGCP)

In the above configuration, failover to the MGCP GW doesn't work.

RL-1
RG2 (MGCP)
RG1 (H.323)

I modify the Route List to include RG2 and then RG1 (as illustrated above) and failover works as expected. FYI, I cause a failover by unplugging the T1 cable from the controller.

I also tested just using RG1 or RG2 within RL-1 and calls complete successfully. Any help is appreciated.

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

Attachments:

image001.png (35.2 KB)

swalberg at gmail

Nov 19, 2009, 7:58 AM

Post #7 of 11 (891 views)
Permalink

Re: FW: CUCM Route List [In reply to]

Just a note on the H.323 and temporary failure... I ran into this while
testing failover between two H.323 GWs.

If you run "show dial-peer voice summary" when the T1 is down you'll see the
corresponding dial peers go down. So, from the router's perspective, the
destination patterns don't exist. If you debug the dialpeer processing on
the router you'll see that the router couldn't find a match. Fixing that
parameter fixed our problem.

Sean

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Mark Marquez <MMarquez [at] goldsys> wrote:

> I guess I wonder why the H.323 GW would send an appropriate response
> once(�temporary failure) and then not on subsequent calls
> (Unallocated/Unassigned Number). I would expect the unallocated/unassigned
> cause code if I sent the wrong digits or length of digits. The �temporary
> failure� cause code makes sense because the T1 is down.
>
>
>
> I agree with you that switching the order of the RG�s fixes the issue but
> the GW�s are not interchangeable. Each GW is located at different sites.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* george.hendrix [at] l-3com [mailto:george.hendrix [at] l-3com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:02 PM
> *To:* Mark Marquez; cisco-voip [at] puck
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List
>
>
>
> Of course if the devices are totally interchangable with the same # of
> ports you can put the mgcp gw as your primary and since it registers with
> cucm, cucm will know if it is down.
>
> Bill
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: Hendrix, George (Bill) @ ITS
> *To*: 'MMarquez [at] goldsys' <MMarquez [at] goldsys>; '
> cisco-voip [at] puck' <cisco-voip [at] puck>
> *Sent*: Wed Nov 18 18:56:17 2009
> *Subject*: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List
>
> You are seeing this because the T1 status on the h.323 gw isn't known to
> cucm. I believe what you would need to do is setup dial peers between the
> mgcp gw and the h.323 gw. Then on the h.323 gw put a higher preference on
> the T1 with the dial peer to the mgcp gw next.
>
> Bill
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck <
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>
> *To*: cisco-voip [at] puck <cisco-voip [at] puck>
> *Sent*: Wed Nov 18 16:29:20 2009
> *Subject*: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List
>
> Here is some supplemental information regarding my previous email. Here is
> a summary of the problem.
>
>
>
> RouteList-1
>
> H323-HW-RG
>
> MGCP-GW-RG
>
>
>
> I make a call that uses Route List (RL-1). The first call is successful
> call via the H323-HW-RG. I then disconnect the T1 cable to the H323 GW
> (creating a failover scenario) and my second call fails over successfully to
> the MGCP-GW-RG. I make a third call, which again uses MGCP-GW-RG and the
> call fails. All other subsequent calls also fail.
>
>
>
> I ran a CCM trace and I see that on the second call attempt (first
> screenshot below) the H323 GW (10.10.32.2) sends back a H.225 RELEASE_COMP
> message with Cause i = 0x08E089 � Temporary Failure. CUCM responds to this
> cause code by sending an MGCP CRCX message to the failover GW (10.10.32.1)
> thereby resulting in a successful call.
>
>
>
>
>
> In the second screenshot where I made the third failed call attempt you�ll
> notice that the H.323 GW also sends a RELEASE_COMP message but it has a
> different cause code Cause I = 0x080081 � Unallocated/Unassigned Number. As
> a result of this cause code CUCM does not send the MGCP CRCX message to the
> failover MGCP GW and the call ultimately fails. Any ideas on how to
> modify this behavior?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mark Marquez
> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 4:42 PM
> *To:* 'cisco-voip [at] puck'
> *Subject:* CUCM Route List
>
>
>
> Are there any special rules regarding H.323 and MGCP gateways configured
> within the same CUCM Route List. I have a route list with two route
> groups. RG1 has the H.323 GW. RG2 has the MGCP GW.
>
>
>
> RL-1
>
> RG1 (H.323)
>
> RG2 (MGCP)
>
>
>
> In the above configuration, failover to the MGCP GW doesn�t work.
>
>
>
> RL-1
>
> RG2 (MGCP)
>
> RG1 (H.323)
>
>
>
> I modify the Route List to include RG2 and then RG1 (as illustrated above)
> and failover works as expected. FYI, I cause a failover by unplugging the
> T1 cable from the controller.
>
>
>
> I also tested just using RG1 or RG2 within RL-1 and calls complete
> successfully. Any help is appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>

--
Sean Walberg <sean [at] ertw> http://ertw.com/

Attachments:

image001.png (99.1 KB)

image002.png (97.1 KB)

MMarquez at goldsys

Nov 19, 2009, 8:00 AM

Post #8 of 11 (908 views)
Permalink

Re: FW: CUCM Route List [In reply to]

Thanks Sean. It's good information to know that this will occur between two H.323 GW's as well. I also appreciate the troubleshooting tip.

I modified the parameter Ryan pointed out and now it works.

Mark Marquez
Unified Communications Specialist
Gold Systems, Inc.
4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite #106
Boulder, Colorado 80301
303.447.2774 say "Mark Marquez"
mmarquez [at] goldsys<mailto:loui [at] goldsys>

From: Sean Walberg [mailto:swalberg [at] gmail]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:58 AM
To: Mark Marquez
Cc: george.hendrix [at] l-3com; cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

Just a note on the H.323 and temporary failure... I ran into this while testing failover between two H.323 GWs.

If you run "show dial-peer voice summary" when the T1 is down you'll see the corresponding dial peers go down. So, from the router's perspective, the destination patterns don't exist. If you debug the dialpeer processing on the router you'll see that the router couldn't find a match. Fixing that parameter fixed our problem.

Sean

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Mark Marquez <MMarquez [at] goldsys<mailto:MMarquez [at] goldsys>> wrote:
I guess I wonder why the H.323 GW would send an appropriate response once("temporary failure) and then not on subsequent calls (Unallocated/Unassigned Number). I would expect the unallocated/unassigned cause code if I sent the wrong digits or length of digits. The "temporary failure" cause code makes sense because the T1 is down.

I agree with you that switching the order of the RG's fixes the issue but the GW's are not interchangeable. Each GW is located at different sites.

From: george.hendrix [at] l-3com<mailto:george.hendrix [at] l-3com> [mailto:george.hendrix [at] l-3com<mailto:george.hendrix [at] l-3com>]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:02 PM
To: Mark Marquez; cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

Of course if the devices are totally interchangable with the same # of ports you can put the mgcp gw as your primary and since it registers with cucm, cucm will know if it is down.

Bill

________________________________
From: Hendrix, George (Bill) @ ITS
To: 'MMarquez [at] goldsys<mailto:MMarquez [at] goldsys>' <MMarquez [at] goldsys<mailto:MMarquez [at] goldsys>>; 'cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>' <cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
Sent: Wed Nov 18 18:56:17 2009
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List
You are seeing this because the T1 status on the h.323 gw isn't known to cucm. I believe what you would need to do is setup dial peers between the mgcp gw and the h.323 gw. Then on the h.323 gw put a higher preference on the T1 with the dial peer to the mgcp gw next.

Bill

________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck> <cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>>
To: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck> <cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
Sent: Wed Nov 18 16:29:20 2009
Subject: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List
Here is some supplemental information regarding my previous email. Here is a summary of the problem.

RouteList-1
H323-HW-RG
MGCP-GW-RG

I make a call that uses Route List (RL-1). The first call is successful call via the H323-HW-RG. I then disconnect the T1 cable to the H323 GW (creating a failover scenario) and my second call fails over successfully to the MGCP-GW-RG. I make a third call, which again uses MGCP-GW-RG and the call fails. All other subsequent calls also fail.

I ran a CCM trace and I see that on the second call attempt (first screenshot below) the H323 GW (10.10.32.2) sends back a H.225 RELEASE_COMP message with Cause i = 0x08E089 - Temporary Failure. CUCM responds to this cause code by sending an MGCP CRCX message to the failover GW (10.10.32.1) thereby resulting in a successful call.

In the second screenshot where I made the third failed call attempt you'll notice that the H.323 GW also sends a RELEASE_COMP message but it has a different cause code Cause I = 0x080081 - Unallocated/Unassigned Number. As a result of this cause code CUCM does not send the MGCP CRCX message to the failover MGCP GW and the call ultimately fails. Any ideas on how to modify this behavior?

[cid:image001.png [at] 01CA68F6]

[cid:image002.png [at] 01CA68F6]

From: Mark Marquez
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 4:42 PM
To: 'cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>'
Subject: CUCM Route List

Are there any special rules regarding H.323 and MGCP gateways configured within the same CUCM Route List. I have a route list with two route groups. RG1 has the H.323 GW. RG2 has the MGCP GW.

RL-1
RG1 (H.323)
RG2 (MGCP)

In the above configuration, failover to the MGCP GW doesn't work.

RL-1
RG2 (MGCP)
RG1 (H.323)

I modify the Route List to include RG2 and then RG1 (as illustrated above) and failover works as expected. FYI, I cause a failover by unplugging the T1 cable from the controller.

I also tested just using RG1 or RG2 within RL-1 and calls complete successfully. Any help is appreciated.

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

--
Sean Walberg <sean [at] ertw<mailto:sean [at] ertw>> http://ertw.com/

Attachments:

image001.png (99.1 KB)

image002.png (97.1 KB)

george.hendrix at l-3com

Nov 19, 2009, 9:33 AM

Post #9 of 11 (879 views)
Permalink

Re: FW: CUCM Route List [In reply to]

Hey Mark/Ryan,

This is good to know. I have CCM 3.3 cluster which has h.323 gateways
and I'd like to set this parameter. I believe the parameters to change
is the stop routing on unallocated number to false correct? I will try
it. however, when I go into the 3.3 system under this parameter, the
system states this only applies to inter-cluster trunks.

Regards,

Bill Hendrix

L-3 Communications

george.hendrix [at] l-3com

EITS Service Desk: 1-800-871-9983

Service Desk email: L-3IT.Help [at] l-3com
<mailto:L-3IT.Help [at] l-3com/omailto:L-3IT.Help [at] l-3com>

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Mark Marquez
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:49 AM
To: Ryan Ratliff
Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

Thanks Ryan, that was the fix. I overlooked that setting. I was
focusing under H.323 Clusterwide Parameters.

Mark Marquez

Unified Communications Specialist

Gold Systems, Inc.

4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite #106

Boulder, Colorado 80301

303.447.2774 say "Mark Marquez"

mmarquez [at] goldsys <mailto:loui [at] goldsys>

From: Ryan Ratliff [mailto:rratliff [at] cisco]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:22 PM
To: Mark Marquez
Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

>From the aforementioned service parameters...

-Ryan

On Nov 18, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Mark Marquez wrote:

Here is some supplemental information regarding my previous email. Here
is a summary of the problem.

RouteList-1

H323-HW-RG

MGCP-GW-RG

I make a call that uses Route List (RL-1). The first call is successful
call via the H323-HW-RG. I then disconnect the T1 cable to the H323 GW
(creating a failover scenario) and my second call fails over
successfully to the MGCP-GW-RG. I make a third call, which again uses
MGCP-GW-RG and the call fails. All other subsequent calls also fail.

I ran a CCM trace and I see that on the second call attempt (first
screenshot below) the H323 GW (10.10.32.2) sends back a H.225
RELEASE_COMP message with Cause i = 0x08E089 - Temporary Failure. CUCM
responds to this cause code by sending an MGCP CRCX message to the
failover GW (10.10.32.1) thereby resulting in a successful call.

In the second screenshot where I made the third failed call attempt
you'll notice that the H.323 GW also sends a RELEASE_COMP message but it
has a different cause code Cause I = 0x080081 - Unallocated/Unassigned
Number. As a result of this cause code CUCM does not send the MGCP CRCX
message to the failover MGCP GW and the call ultimately fails. Any
ideas on how to modify this behavior?

<image001.png>

<image002.png>

From: Mark Marquez
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 4:42 PM
To: 'cisco-voip [at] puck'
Subject: CUCM Route List

Are there any special rules regarding H.323 and MGCP gateways configured
within the same CUCM Route List. I have a route list with two route
groups. RG1 has the H.323 GW. RG2 has the MGCP GW.

RL-1

RG1 (H.323)

RG2 (MGCP)

In the above configuration, failover to the MGCP GW doesn't work.

RL-1

RG2 (MGCP)

RG1 (H.323)

I modify the Route List to include RG2 and then RG1 (as illustrated
above) and failover works as expected. FYI, I cause a failover by
unplugging the T1 cable from the controller.

I also tested just using RG1 or RG2 within RL-1 and calls complete
successfully. Any help is appreciated.

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

Attachments:

image001.png (35.2 KB)

MMarquez at goldsys

Nov 19, 2009, 9:48 AM

Post #10 of 11 (881 views)
Permalink

Re: FW: CUCM Route List [In reply to]

George,
I have the same verbiage on a CUCM 7.1 cluster but apparently the behavior also applies to on cluster scenarios. Ryan may know something different for CUCM 3.3. To answer your question, yes you would set the setting to False.

Stop Routing on Unallocated Number Flag: [Required Field]

This parameter determines routing behavior for intercluster trunk calls to an unallocated number. An unallocated number represents a dialed directory number that does not exist in a Cisco cluster. Valid values specify True or False. When the parameter is set to True and a call that is being routed to a remote Cisco cluster through a route list is released by a remote Cisco CallManager because of the unallocated number, a local Cisco CallManager will stop routing the call to a next device in the route list. When the parameter is set to False, the local Cisco CallManager will route the call to the next device.

This is a required field.

Default: True

From: george.hendrix [at] l-3com [mailto:george.hendrix [at] l-3com]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:33 AM
To: Mark Marquez; Ryan Ratliff
Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

Hey Mark/Ryan,

This is good to know. I have CCM 3.3 cluster which has h.323 gateways and I'd like to set this parameter. I believe the parameters to change is the stop routing on unallocated number to false correct? I will try it. however, when I go into the 3.3 system under this parameter, the system states this only applies to inter-cluster trunks.

Regards,

Bill Hendrix
L-3 Communications
george.hendrix [at] l-3com<mailto:george.hendrix [at] l-3com>
EITS Service Desk: 1-800-871-9983
Service Desk email: L-3IT.Help [at] l-3com<mailto:L-3IT.Help [at] l-3com/omailto:L-3IT.Help [at] l-3com>

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Mark Marquez
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:49 AM
To: Ryan Ratliff
Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

Thanks Ryan, that was the fix. I overlooked that setting. I was focusing under H.323 Clusterwide Parameters.

Mark Marquez
Unified Communications Specialist
Gold Systems, Inc.
4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite #106
Boulder, Colorado 80301
303.447.2774 say "Mark Marquez"
mmarquez [at] goldsys<mailto:loui [at] goldsys>

From: Ryan Ratliff [mailto:rratliff [at] cisco]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:22 PM
To: Mark Marquez
Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

>From the aforementioned service parameters...
[cid:image003.png [at] 01CA6905]
-Ryan

On Nov 18, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Mark Marquez wrote:

Here is some supplemental information regarding my previous email. Here is a summary of the problem.

RouteList-1
H323-HW-RG
MGCP-GW-RG

I make a call that uses Route List (RL-1). The first call is successful call via the H323-HW-RG. I then disconnect the T1 cable to the H323 GW (creating a failover scenario) and my second call fails over successfully to the MGCP-GW-RG. I make a third call, which again uses MGCP-GW-RG and the call fails. All other subsequent calls also fail.

I ran a CCM trace and I see that on the second call attempt (first screenshot below) the H323 GW (10.10.32.2) sends back a H.225 RELEASE_COMP message with Cause i = 0x08E089 - Temporary Failure. CUCM responds to this cause code by sending an MGCP CRCX message to the failover GW (10.10.32.1) thereby resulting in a successful call.

In the second screenshot where I made the third failed call attempt you'll notice that the H.323 GW also sends a RELEASE_COMP message but it has a different cause code Cause I = 0x080081 - Unallocated/Unassigned Number. As a result of this cause code CUCM does not send the MGCP CRCX message to the failover MGCP GW and the call ultimately fails. Any ideas on how to modify this behavior?

<image001.png>

<image002.png>

From: Mark Marquez
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 4:42 PM
To: 'cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:'cisco-voip [at] puck>'
Subject: CUCM Route List

Are there any special rules regarding H.323 and MGCP gateways configured within the same CUCM Route List. I have a route list with two route groups. RG1 has the H.323 GW. RG2 has the MGCP GW.

RL-1
RG1 (H.323)
RG2 (MGCP)

In the above configuration, failover to the MGCP GW doesn't work.

RL-1
RG2 (MGCP)
RG1 (H.323)

I modify the Route List to include RG2 and then RG1 (as illustrated above) and failover works as expected. FYI, I cause a failover by unplugging the T1 cable from the controller.

I also tested just using RG1 or RG2 within RL-1 and calls complete successfully. Any help is appreciated.

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

Attachments:

image002.png (0.17 KB)

image003.png (35.2 KB)

rratliff at cisco

Nov 19, 2009, 10:27 AM

Post #11 of 11 (877 views)
Permalink

Re: FW: CUCM Route List [In reply to]

The behavior should be in the route list component and should not rely on the device the call is routing through so I'd expect it to behave the same in 3.3 as other versions.

-Ryan

On Nov 19, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Mark Marquez wrote:

George,
I have the same verbiage on a CUCM 7.1 cluster but apparently the behavior also applies to on cluster scenarios. Ryan may know something different for CUCM 3.3. To answer your question, yes you would set the setting to False.

Stop Routing on Unallocated Number Flag: <image002.png>
This parameter determines routing behavior for intercluster trunk calls to an unallocated number. An unallocated number represents a dialed directory number that does not exist in a Cisco cluster. Valid values specify True or False. When the parameter is set to True and a call that is being routed to a remote Cisco cluster through a route list is released by a remote Cisco CallManager because of the unallocated number, a local Cisco CallManager will stop routing the call to a next device in the route list. When the parameter is set to False, the local Cisco CallManager will route the call to the next device.

This is a required field.

Default: True

From: george.hendrix [at] l-3com [mailto:george.hendrix [at] l-3com]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:33 AM
To: Mark Marquez; Ryan Ratliff
Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

Hey Mark/Ryan,

This is good to know. I have CCM 3.3 cluster which has h.323 gateways and I�d like to set this parameter. I believe the parameters to change is the stop routing on unallocated number to false correct? I will try it. however, when I go into the 3.3 system under this parameter, the system states this only applies to inter-cluster trunks.

Regards,

Bill Hendrix
L-3 Communications
george.hendrix [at] l-3com
EITS Service Desk: 1-800-871-9983
Service Desk email: L-3IT.Help [at] l-3com

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Mark Marquez
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:49 AM
To: Ryan Ratliff
Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

Thanks Ryan, that was the fix. I overlooked that setting. I was focusing under H.323 Clusterwide Parameters.

Mark Marquez
Unified Communications Specialist
Gold Systems, Inc.
4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite #106
Boulder, Colorado 80301
303.447.2774 say "Mark Marquez"
mmarquez [at] goldsys

From: Ryan Ratliff [mailto:rratliff [at] cisco]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:22 PM
To: Mark Marquez
Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FW: CUCM Route List

From the aforementioned service parameters...
<image003.png>
-Ryan

On Nov 18, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Mark Marquez wrote:

Here is some supplemental information regarding my previous email. Here is a summary of the problem.

RouteList-1
H323-HW-RG
MGCP-GW-RG

I make a call that uses Route List (RL-1). The first call is successful call via the H323-HW-RG. I then disconnect the T1 cable to the H323 GW (creating a failover scenario) and my second call fails over successfully to the MGCP-GW-RG. I make a third call, which again uses MGCP-GW-RG and the call fails. All other subsequent calls also fail.

I ran a CCM trace and I see that on the second call attempt (first screenshot below) the H323 GW (10.10.32.2) sends back a H.225 RELEASE_COMP message with Cause i = 0x08E089 � Temporary Failure. CUCM responds to this cause code by sending an MGCP CRCX message to the failover GW (10.10.32.1) thereby resulting in a successful call.

In the second screenshot where I made the third failed call attempt you�ll notice that the H.323 GW also sends a RELEASE_COMP message but it has a different cause code Cause I = 0x080081 � Unallocated/Unassigned Number. As a result of this cause code CUCM does not send the MGCP CRCX message to the failover MGCP GW and the call ultimately fails. Any ideas on how to modify this behavior?

<image001.png>

<image002.png>

From: Mark Marquez
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 4:42 PM
To: 'cisco-voip [at] puck'
Subject: CUCM Route List

Are there any special rules regarding H.323 and MGCP gateways configured within the same CUCM Route List. I have a route list with two route groups. RG1 has the H.323 GW. RG2 has the MGCP GW.

RL-1
RG1 (H.323)
RG2 (MGCP)

In the above configuration, failover to the MGCP GW doesn�t work.

RL-1
RG2 (MGCP)
RG1 (H.323)

I modify the Route List to include RG2 and then RG1 (as illustrated above) and failover works as expected. FYI, I cause a failover by unplugging the T1 cable from the controller.

I also tested just using RG1 or RG2 within RL-1 and calls complete successfully. Any help is appreciated.

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

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads