I have a situation where I have configured TEHO or least cost routing for a customer who is running UCM 7.13. They have 4 PRIs in different Local Calling Areas. One is even in a different area code. I setup route filters for each PRI that matched the area code and office code that is a local call to that PRI.
I then have 9.@ route patterns that have one of these route filters used. I also have a 9.@ pattern with a long distance route filter defined as long distance direct dial exists, and area code exists.
The problem I am having is that some of the calls for the office codes that I have defined in the TEHO route filters are being ignored and routed as LD calls.
What I have determined is that when I create an office code pattern in a route filter clause as 32, not all the numbers in the [ ] will match.
If the office code to be matched is 328, it is ignored, and sent as a LD call. But 325 would match, and the call is routed out a local gateway.
I split that office code string into 2 clauses and the calls are routed normally. I split 32 into 32 and 32.
The issue is that there are alot of other clauses like this one and will necessitate more route filters being created.
Has anyone else run into this issue? Is this a bug or a known limitation. I have not found anything under the route filter configuration guides about this.