I've been messing around with loal route groups and was wondering if it was possible to accomplish a redundancy design using them? for example site#1= MGCP/PRI, site#2=MGCP/PRI, and site#3=MGCP/PRI. So if site#1 uses its local MGCP gateway/PRI to make outbound calls however that gateway crashes or the PRI goes down is it possible for the outbound calls to then route out Site#2's local gateway? If the answer is no then local route groups seems like a great concept but Cisco needs to improve it for redundancy, that is for it to be usefull in the real world...
You are very close to truth mate. Route groups and route list will do the job for you with full redundancy and if needed digit manipulation (gateways in different countries still can be used for redundancy).
A route list is a prioritized list of eligible paths (route groups) for an outbound call. Typically, a route list is associated with a remote location, and multiple route patterns may point to it. A typical use of a route list is to specify two paths for a remote destination, where the first-choice path is across the IP WAN and the second-choice path is through the local PSTN gateways.
Route groups control and point to specific devices, which are typically gateways (MGCP or H.323), H.323 trunks to a gatekeeper or remote Unified CM cluster, or SIP trunks to a SIP proxy. (In Cisco Unified CM Release 3.2 and earlier, the role of the H.323 trunk was performed by the Anonymous Device gateway and by H.323 gateways configured using the Intercluster Trunk protocol.)
Thanks Konrad, ya it just blows my mind that cisco came up with local route groups to help reduce the amount of route patterns/route lists for enterprise installs however they somehow missed the need for redundancy? Not to bash Cisco, I'm usually a big advocate of Cisco but they missed something major there. Now if they came up with "Local Route Lists" instead that would make sense. I'm gonna quickly trademark that and sell it to Cisco for the next version of ccm ;)
On the surface, the answer to your question is: Yes. You can acheive call path redundancy in a manner you describe with a config like this:
(1) Standard Local Route Group
If the gateways/ports that comprise the "Standard Local Route Group" for the Site 1 device are offline, the CUCM will go to route group 2 and route the call.
Now, the part that may require consideration is if Site 2 is using this RouteList and the Site2 local gateway/ports are offline? CUCM will rollover to route group (3) "Site3RG". One point of interest, what if you want site 1 thrown in the mix for Site 2? What if you don't want Site 2 or Site 3 having the same secondary/tertiary call paths as Site 1.
I suppose one could create a Standard Local Route Group (LRG) with member ports from all gateways you want to have in the mix. IOW, the LRG for Site 1 could be:
The problem here would be that maybe you don't want all calls that leverage LRG to use site2gw or site3gw. A good example is 911 call routing (in the US). You wouldn't want a 911 call to go out site2gw if the PSAP isn't in the same operating area as the site1 caller.
Anyway, based on the parameters of your original question you can accomplish what you are looking to do. That being said, I think you are correct in that there are limitations that you should be aware of when laying out the design. LRG is operating as designed and it has a purpose. I am sure there will be enhancements made but I don't think they existing in 8.0. Possibly 8.5? But that is speculative.
In case of cisco configured as H323 GW's (NOT MGCP) in these cenario do you think if in Standard local route group ports of GW for specific destination are all Busy (but not all ports of that GW for other Destinations) then we will try next GW in Site2RG?
You have reached the Cisco Logistics Support Center.. To Check Status of
your RMA, visit Product Returns & Replacements (RMA). Need help? Contact
us by Phone or Email. North Americas Phone: 1800 553 2447 Option 4
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Europe Phone: +3...
The short answer is that you don't.... That isn't entirely true while at
the same time it kind of is, but for the most part you don't configure
the softkeys. You enable or disable them via TCL. Here is the long
answer. Be sure to read the whole thing or e...
Topology: IP Phone > Switches > Microsoft NPS setup to forward 802.1x
proxy to > ISE 2.1 patch 3 Authentication: EAP-TLS using Cisco MIC SANs
Phone Models 802.1X support? 802.1x flavor Addtl Comment EAP-MD5 EAP-TLS
Cisco 3905 Y Y N Cisco 6911 Y Y N Cisco ...