Many explicit routes w/o filters Verses few 9.@ with complex filters

[Tom Dillon]

I am curious how other people have implemented their route patterns. I have a need to restrict calls to multiple areas (Northern Calif. calls, Calif. calls, U.S. calls, and International calls). We have implemented our dial plan with 110 patterns that matches all the area codes in Calif. and Northern Calif. with the normal blocked routes. We use 9.1XXXXXXXXX for U.S. calls and 9.011! for International calls.

We could have implemented our dial plan with a few 9.@ patterns and created filters that accomplish the same routing.

We wanted to make the route patterns as self-documenting as possible. Having a filter with many area codes “OR’d” was not as readable as having each area code in a separate route pattern (9.1408XXXXXXX). We also created a Route List named Blocked-Route without Route Groups to help document all the blocked routes.

I have received different views on route patterns: TAC gasped at the number of Route Patterns, but Cisco San Jose Campus IP Telephony support team prefers not to use 9.@ patterns.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts,

Tom.

[dgoodwin]

Just my $.02 on this...

There is nothing wrong with using a mixture of both @ and non-@ route patterns, I have done this several times.

For your scenario, it sounds to me like it makes sense to use many route patterns and summarize where possible with []. Also another thing to keep in mind is that the length of the entire clause in the route filter is limited to a certain number of total characters, and the number of route patterns is not strictly limited.

[Tom Dillon]

Thanks Dave! I noticed your scheduled event for Callmanager questions.....That's Great, but you have been doing that since the forum started ;-) I read all the posts and there is a lot of good information in this forum. I appreciate you taking the time to answer so many questions.

[dgoodwin]

No problem. Keep the good questions coming, especially during the Ask the Experts session. :-)