A dial plan question

Unanswered Question
Jun 19th, 2007

SRND at http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps556/products_implementation_design_guide_chapter09186a00806375f2.html#wp1044818

in the section:

Deploying Variable-Length On-Net Dial Plans with Partitioned Addressing

and the subsection within it:

Inter-Site Calls Within a Cluster:

translation_pt 91212555.1xxx to be translated to 1xxx

and another sub-section

Outgoing PSTN and IP WAN Calls:

LD RP: 9.1[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxx

If you look at these two, there seem to be a big problem with this solution in the case IP wan goes down, the IP phones in the HQ where CCM exist are not able to call the remote office 2125551xxx through pstn because call always will look for 91212555.1xxx and translate to 4 digits but they are unregistered already and should went into SRST mode. But the call manager can not route the call at all unless there is a feature allows CCM to do this if the phone is down and it will detect it and route to pstn? Is this a new feature in CCM 5.x?

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
Brandon Buffin Tue, 06/19/2007 - 12:24

Beginning with CCM 4.2 there is a new DN level setting - Call Forward Unregistered. So, if the phone is unregistered, you can configure a different number to send the call to. In this case, if the phone is operating in SRST mode, you can send the call out to the PSTN.

Hope this helps. If so, please rate the post.

Brandon

ciscoforum Wed, 06/20/2007 - 08:06

Thankd Brandon. I think I heard this before in one of the Cisco seminar. But I am looking at CCM 5.11 line forward configuration I don't see this option. Attached is a snapshot from my lab CCM 5.11.

thisisshanky Wed, 06/20/2007 - 08:08

CM 5.1 doesnt follow 4.2 feature set. It follows 4.1 feature set. You will see this forward option in 6.0 and moving forward.

HTH

Sankar

PS: please remember to rate all posts!

ciscoforum Wed, 06/20/2007 - 09:02

Sankar

Thanks. I did find this on CCM6.0. Now my question is: If you look at my initial qeustion, do you think this is a design flaw for CCM 5.x since it is from 5.x srnd?

Thanks

Actions

This Discussion