Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Unable to match inbound dial-peer

I'm having a problem matching an inbound SIP dial-peer.  From the config:

dial-peer voice 2 voip

description Default inbound H323

incoming called-number .

dtmf-relay h245-signal

codec g711ulaw

no vad

!

dial-peer voice 3 voip

description Default inbound SIP

session protocol sipv2

session transport tcp

incoming called-number .

dtmf-relay rtp-nte

codec g711ulaw

no vad

!

However, when I place a call from the SIP IP PBX (not UCM), it always matches dial-peer 2:

*Jul 29 14:48:06.675: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/DPM/dpMatchPeersCore:

   Calling Number=8800, Called Number=8800, Peer Info Type=DIALPEER_INFO_SPEECH

*Jul 29 14:48:06.679: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/DPM/dpMatchPeersCore:

   Match Rule=DP_MATCH_DEST; Called Number=8800

*Jul 29 14:48:06.679: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/DPM/dpMatchPeersCore:

   Result=Success(0) after DP_MATCH_DEST

*Jul 29 14:48:06.679: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/DPM/dpMatchSafModulePlugin:

   dialstring=8800, saf_enabled=1, saf_dndb_lookup=1, dp_result=0

*Jul 29 14:48:06.679: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/DPM/dpMatchPeersMoreArg:

   Result=SUCCESS(0)

   List of Matched Outgoing Dial-peer(s):

     1: Dial-peer Tag=8800

*Jul 29 14:48:06.679: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/DPM/dpAssociateIncomingPeerCore:

   Calling Number=9166328800, Called Number=, Voice-Interface=0x0,

   Timeout=TRUE, Peer Encap Type=ENCAP_VOIP, Peer Search Type=PEER_TYPE_VOICE,

   Peer Info Type=DIALPEER_INFO_SPEECH

*Jul 29 14:48:06.679: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/DPM/dpAssociateIncomingPeerCore:

   Result=NO_MATCH(-1) After All Match Rules Attempt

*Jul 29 14:48:06.679: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/DPM/dpMatchSafModulePlugin:

   dialstring=NULL, saf_enabled=0, saf_dndb_lookup=0, dp_result=-1

*Jul 29 14:48:06.679: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/DPM/dpAssociateIncomingPeerCore:

   Calling Number=9166328800, Called Number=, Voice-Interface=0x0,

   Timeout=TRUE, Peer Encap Type=ENCAP_VOIP, Peer Search Type=PEER_TYPE_VOICE,

   Peer Info Type=DIALPEER_INFO_SPEECH

*Jul 29 14:48:06.679: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/DPM/dpAssociateIncomingPeerCore:

   Result=NO_MATCH(-1) After All Match Rules Attempt

*Jul 29 14:48:06.679: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/DPM/dpMatchSafModulePlugin:

   dialstring=NULL, saf_enabled=0, saf_dndb_lookup=0, dp_result=-1

*Jul 29 14:48:06.679: //-1/21F22FC38044/DPM/dpAssociateIncomingPeerCore:

   Calling Number=9166328800, Called Number=8800, Voice-Interface=0x0,

   Timeout=TRUE, Peer Encap Type=ENCAP_VOIP, Peer Search Type=PEER_TYPE_VOICE,

   Peer Info Type=DIALPEER_INFO_SPEECH

*Jul 29 14:48:06.679: //-1/21F22FC38044/DPM/dpAssociateIncomingPeerCore:

   Result=Success(0) after DP_MATCH_INCOMING_DNIS; Incoming Dial-peer=2

*Jul 29 14:48:06.679: //-1/21F22FC38044/DPM/dpMatchSafModulePlugin:

   dialstring=NULL, saf_enabled=0, saf_dndb_lookup=0, dp_result=0

If I shut down dial-peer 2, it will match dial-peer 3.  All calls are successful, even when dial-peer 2 is matched by the inbound SIP call.  How do I force SIP calls to match dial-peer 3 and H323 calls to match dial-peer 2 (other than using source-based Carrier-ID routing).

Thanx

2 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

Re: Unable to match inbound dial-peer

You'll need to be more specific with your incoming called-number. When the GW hunts through the dial-peers it hunts top down, and won't take into account the protocol you have specified.

One suggestion would be to prepend a 9 to all incoming SIP (or H.323) calls then use a translation rule to strip the 9.

New Member

Re: Unable to match inbound dial-peer

Understood. I was just hoping for something more generic.  Very strange that it would even match a dial-peer set up for H323. It should be smarter than that.  It will successfully route the SIP-SIP call, but the call will experience some DTMF relay issues occasionally.

255
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies