Cisco Support Community
Community Member

Using Multiple 9.@

Got an existing cluster (6.1.4) that has a dial plan problem. The Line has a partition with an unfiltered 9.@, and the device has a partition with route filter 9.@ with route filter for Emergency calls (needed to ensure correct routing as all users are EM and move between sites). This doesn't work as an Emergency Call matches the Unfiltered 9.@.

I could fix by Using a filtered Route Pattern  on the Line, but there are missing numbers on the GBNP and I'd prefer to leave it unfiltered. I have tried changing the Emergency Number definitions to full Route Patterns, but the unfltered 9.@ still routed the call. This seems confusing as surely an exact match in the RP is more specific ?

I'd appreciate comments on this as to the logic used when using National Number plans, also any other suggestions gratefully received

Cisco Employee

Re: Using Multiple 9.@

If you use DNA what pattern it says it's matching?

It'll also tell you the regex it's matching.

Are you using the same partition for 9.@ and the other RPs?



If this helps, please rate



if this helps, please rate
Community Member

Re: Using Multiple 9.@

DNA shows what I explained in original post. The 2 route patterns are in different partitions, Its seems as though CUCM choses the unfiltered 9.@ on the line over the filtered9.@ on the device.

If it wasn't using GBNP, I'd expect the more specific RP to be chosen even though it was lower down the list - but this doesn't seem to happen. If this is true is there any docs that explain the rules about using supplied number plans ?

Super Bronze

Re: Using Multiple 9.@


What you are trying to do is correct, and should work.

If the unfiltered pattern is matching, I would suspect that you have one of these problems:

1) A problem with the emergency route pattern - if there is no line CSS assigned (remove it) does it work? Obviously you may want to test an alternate number rather than go making lots of 999 calls. It might be that the partition it's assigned to isn't in the CSS you expect.

2) Some replication issue - try registering the phone to the publisher and see if it works correctly there.



Please rate helpful posts...

Aaron Please remember to rate helpful posts to identify useful responses, and mark 'Answered' if appropriate!
CreatePlease to create content