Warning message

  • Cisco Support Forums is in Read Only mode while the site is being migrated.
  • Cisco Support Forums is in Read Only mode while the site is being migrated.

SIP with Link Balancer - All works except LD

Unanswered Question
Sep 9th, 2013
User Badges:

Good day all -

Have an interesting scenario and was looking for the gurus to maybe shed some light. First, we are implementing a Elfiq Link Balancer. All is working great as far HA via our two ISP's. On one of our ISP, we have SIP as well. Given, SIP will never fail over to the other provider we have backup PRI lines for that. SIP/DATA come in on the same pipe. Within the Link Balancer, SIP traffic (5060,5070 and the Source and Destination IPs have been excluded).

This is our setup -

ISP ------> Managed Router (bridge) -------> Elfiq ------> Cisco ASA ------> Cisco Cube Router ------> Cisco CallManager

Now, if I unlplug the PRI lines to not add into mix. And move the Elfiq into the mix the following happens:


1.) Local call outbound via SIP - WORKED

2.) Local call inbound via SIP  - WORKED

3.) LD call inbound via SIP - WORKED

4.) LD call outbound via SIP - DENIED - fast busy after 3 sec delay of number being dialed.

Since Local and LD follow the same path, why wouldn't LD work. If I move the Elfiq back out of the picture all is well.

According to our ISP, when viewing the SIP Ladder, on the LD - the invite is sent 3x and no response.

Here is our config from our Cube Router for Cube to SIP Provider:

dial-peer voice 4 voip

description CUBE to SIP Provider

translation-profile outgoing strip-9-to-pstn


destination-pattern 9.T

session protocol sipv2

session target sip-server

incoming called-number 9.T

voice-class codec 1 

voice-class sip early-offer forced

voice-class sip map resp-code 181 to 183

voice-class sip bind control source-interface GigabitEthernet0/0

voice-class sip bind media source-interface GigabitEthernet0/0

dtmf-relay rtp-nte

no vad dial-peer voice 4 voip

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)


This Discussion