Extension mobility with same DN for different profiles

Unanswered Question
Oct 29th, 2008


I would like to implement for an airport the extension mobility to manage shared counters (equipped with 7911 IP Phones on Airport Cisco cluster) used by different airlines compagnies. The airlines compagnies have their own telephone system (Cisco, Nortel, centrex, etc...) on the site for their admin phones to be integrated (trunk) with the counters (airport cluster).

I would like to keep the same DN (Ex: 6121 for counter #121 and 6223 for counter #223) in the logged-out AND logged-in mode.

In the logged-out mode, we are in the airport "dial plan", internal, 911 and local calls permitted.

In the logged-in mode, I want to keep the same DN but with the profile of the airline compagnies, with CSS and Partition specific to the compagny to be able when they push 9 to reach their telephone system or a shared PRI (for the small compagnies) for long distance. The airport will use Avotus to rebill the compagny for the long distance if they use the shared PRI based on the partition (because they use the same DN and Phone).

So, the same DN (Ex: 6121) will always be used at the counter #121, always the same IP Phone at the same location but with a different profile per compagny for different gateway access and call accounting.

I ask for any feedback if you think we can have issues or if this scenario is or not supported.

Thanks a lot for your help.


  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Chris Deren Wed, 10/29/2008 - 13:01

You should be able to do this, create your seperate profiles with the same DNs but different parition, then each profile should use a different CSS at the DN level with access to route patterns specific to their environemtn.



francois.champa... Wed, 10/29/2008 - 13:35

Thanks Chris.

Looks like good but you say should ... so we'll do some tests in the lab before saying a real YES to the customer,

Thanks for the info,


Chris Deren Wed, 10/29/2008 - 13:44

It will defintely work, ensure though that you are not doing the masking on Route List (within a route group) or the GW as that will overrite what's set at route pattern.




This Discussion