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

10 digit dialing not working as expected

Below you'll find the simplest form I can come up with for representing my Calling Search Space & Route/Translation Patterns.  My thought process for this is as follows.  If a call comes in to a phone registered to CUCM, we want to match that (All-IP-Phones).  We're transitioning from 7 digit numbers to 10-digit numbers, so there's a translation pattern that takes a call placed to 7 digit number and tries it w/ the area code pre-pended ...and check for that number registered to CUCM (10-digit-864-translate-864-SIP).  We check for int'l calls (SIP864-Intl), and 911 (SIP864-911)*.  I have partitions in place I'm not using (SIP864-1803 & SIP864-1864) ...and probably should remove.  Our voicemail (currently Asterisk) pilot number begins with 555 so we funnel all those calls down the appropriate SIP trunk (SIP864-555).  For Long distance calls (1.@) they're matched in SIP864-LD. 

The problem comes in here.  I've specified a route pattern that should match 10 digit calls w/ XXXXXXXXXX in the SIP864-10-Digits** partition.  (These last two partitions/route patterns direct calls out our sip trunk un-molested.)

The final route patterns are in the SIP864 partition.  We allow per-call caller-id blocking with the *67 route patterns.  I also have a pattern that should match 7 digits (XXXXXXX) and @ ...which should match anything else, though I've tried to build the CSS so that the @ won't be used.  On these last two patterns, we prepend the area code (864) so that we can direct calls out our SIP trunk (which requires 10 digits).

 

What is happening is a user calls a number w/ 10 digits, it hits the @ pattern in SIP864 (instead of the XXXXXXXXXX in SIP864-10-Digits) and strips off the intended area code and replaces it with 864 ...and the call fails. 

I get that @ is a list of patterns, ...and apparently one of them is more specific than my 10 xes pattern above.  How can I make it so that users are able to dial 10 digits or 11 digits for long distance, while maintaining the ability to dial 7 digits in-area-code?

 

 

Route Partitions in order, with route patterns (except the translation pattern specified):

All-IP-Phones
    -- all phones registered to CUCM
10-digit-864-translate-864-SIP
    (translation pattern)656XXXX ---> 864656XXXX
SIP864-Intl
    0114[0-469]!
    011.XXXXXXXXXXXX
SIP864-911
    9.911
    911
SIP864-1803
SIP864-1864
SIP864-555
    555XXXX
SIP864-LD
    1.@
SIP864-10-Digits
    XXXXXXXXXX
SIP864
    864.XXXXXXX
    *67.1XXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXX
    *67.XXXXXXX
    *67.XXXXXXXXXX
    @

 

 

*Should probably be bumped up ...at least above the Int'l calls.

**This pattern can probably be placed in the SIP864-LD partition, but its broken out now.

2 REPLIES
New Member

In diving a little deeper

In diving a little deeper into the @ route pattern wild card, I came to a discussion on route filters.  My testing indicates this isn't the solution, but to report my "progress", I'll include it.

 

I've created a route filter whose clause states:

AREA-CODE DOES-NOT-EXIST AND OFFICE-CODE EXISTS AND SUBSCRIBER EXISTS

 

My thinking is that I apply THAT route filter to the @ route pattern, whichever actual pattern WAS being matched for 10-digit calls will no longer be allowed.

 

In practice, this doesn't work, as the @ pattern is still matched.

New Member

Just for giggles, I wanted to

Just for giggles, I wanted to see if removing the @ would make it work as expected (since I DO have a 7xes route pattern ...which is all I'd intended to use the @ for anyway).  I also tweaked the 7 & 10 digit patterns to [2-9]XXXXXX and [2-9]XX[2-9]XXXXXX.

 

It works like I want it to.  I'm a bit nervous to remove the @ permanently from my CSS, but I've set up a copy of this CSS for testing to see if I run into problems without it.

83
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies