Mailing List Archive

hi there,

I have done this configuration:

my phones has a css in which I have a route pattern that authorize all for
the phone.

I have user device profile in which I have configured a css with
partitions that don't permit for example international calls.

When I try to verify with Dialed number analyzer all works fine, the
international call, that is NOT authorized match the rule and ends on
bogus gateway.

But when I do this making phone call the call is routed.

Is this an Extension mobility limit? I have this configuration without
extension mobility and all works fine.

thanks in advance,
Leonardo

Leonard,

It sounds like you are attemting use "An Alternative Approach to Configuring
Calling Search Spaces" found in the Callmanager 3.3 SRND
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/largeent/it/ese/srnd.html

In order the for the blocking/permitting patterns to work as described, your
'permit' patterns must be a closer match than your 'deny' patterns. The
"closest match" logic is best described in Chapter 9 of Paul Giralt's book
"Troubleshooting Cisco IP Telephony".

Currently Dialed Number Analyzer actually uses its own match logic instead
of using that of the currently active ccm.exe process. This can lead to
incorrect results in very specific corner cases, such as yours. 95% of the
time, DNA should provide accurate results.

/Wes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of Leonardo D'Urso
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 6:45 PM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
>
>
>
> hi there,
>
> I have done this configuration:
>
> my phones has a css in which I have a route pattern that authorize all for
> the phone.
>
> I have user device profile in which I have configured a css with
> partitions that don't permit for example international calls.
>
> When I try to verify with Dialed number analyzer all works fine, the
> international call, that is NOT authorized match the rule and ends on
> bogus gateway.
>
> But when I do this making phone call the call is routed.
>
> Is this an Extension mobility limit? I have this configuration without
> extension mobility and all works fine.
>
> thanks in advance,
> Leonardo
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Hi Wes, hi all

oh no Leonardo again! ;-)

I have read the chapter in online manual (chapter 7 page 8,9), and I have
read chapter 9 of Paul Girard: Troubleshooting ecc... I think my
configuration respect the closest match concept.

I have the same configuration on another customer of mine, with a
difference, lines(DN) are defined statically on phones and no user device
profile is in use. In this case all works fine.

This is an example of configuration in which I describe all of components:

the phone can call everyone. So it has a css in which there is a partition
in which I have the rp 0.! that points to the voice gateway for this
location.

the user device profile, in which I have the line, has a css in which I
have a partition in which I have a rp that blocks all calls to the
international. This route pattern is 0.00!

when I call:

0001-555-5555555 (where the first zero is used to catch the line)

the ccs of the user device profile defined into DN should match the block,
and then go to the bogus voice gateway.

But what happens is that the call is routed to voice gateway, and so this
approach seems that don't works.

Any idea?


thanks in advance.
Leonardo




On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wes Sisk wrote:

> Leonard,
>
> It sounds like you are attemting use "An Alternative Approach to Configuring
> Calling Search Spaces" found in the Callmanager 3.3 SRND
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/largeent/it/ese/srnd.html
>
> In order the for the blocking/permitting patterns to work as described, your
> 'permit' patterns must be a closer match than your 'deny' patterns. The
> "closest match" logic is best described in Chapter 9 of Paul Giralt's book
> "Troubleshooting Cisco IP Telephony".
>
> Currently Dialed Number Analyzer actually uses its own match logic instead
> of using that of the currently active ccm.exe process. This can lead to
> incorrect results in very specific corner cases, such as yours. 95% of the
> time, DNA should provide accurate results.
>
> /Wes
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> > [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of Leonardo D'Urso
> > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 6:45 PM
> > To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
> >
> >
> >
> > hi there,
> >
> > I have done this configuration:
> >
> > my phones has a css in which I have a route pattern that authorize all for
> > the phone.
> >
> > I have user device profile in which I have configured a css with
> > partitions that don't permit for example international calls.
> >
> > When I try to verify with Dialed number analyzer all works fine, the
> > international call, that is NOT authorized match the rule and ends on
> > bogus gateway.
> >
> > But when I do this making phone call the call is routed.
> >
> > Is this an Extension mobility limit? I have this configuration without
> > extension mobility and all works fine.
> >
> > thanks in advance,
> > Leonardo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

Leonardo,

I suspect ! is going to be a special case because it implies any digit, any
number of digits. Therefore the idea of "better match" pretty much
disappears.

We typically use calculations to see which is "better match"

Example:

91X = (1 possible match) * (1 possible match) * (10 possible matches) = 10
1XX = (1 possible match) * (10 possible matches) * (10 possible matches) =
100

Therefore 91X is a closer match if both 9 and 1 are matched.

However in the case of a variable length dialplan, this analysis does not
hold up. I need to do a bit of testing, but I fear that solution was tested
with the fixed length US dialplan in mind.

/Wes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leonardo D'Urso [mailto:durso@alter.it]
> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:09 AM
> To: Wes Sisk
> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
>
>
>
> Hi Wes, hi all
>
> oh no Leonardo again! ;-)
>
> I have read the chapter in online manual (chapter 7 page 8,9), and I have
> read chapter 9 of Paul Girard: Troubleshooting ecc... I think my
> configuration respect the closest match concept.
>
> I have the same configuration on another customer of mine, with a
> difference, lines(DN) are defined statically on phones and no user device
> profile is in use. In this case all works fine.
>
> This is an example of configuration in which I describe all of components:
>
> the phone can call everyone. So it has a css in which there is a partition
> in which I have the rp 0.! that points to the voice gateway for this
> location.
>
> the user device profile, in which I have the line, has a css in which I
> have a partition in which I have a rp that blocks all calls to the
> international. This route pattern is 0.00!
>
> when I call:
>
> 0001-555-5555555 (where the first zero is used to catch the line)
>
> the ccs of the user device profile defined into DN should match the block,
> and then go to the bogus voice gateway.
>
> But what happens is that the call is routed to voice gateway, and so this
> approach seems that don't works.
>
> Any idea?
>
>
> thanks in advance.
> Leonardo
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wes Sisk wrote:
>
> > Leonard,
> >
> > It sounds like you are attemting use "An Alternative Approach
> to Configuring
> > Calling Search Spaces" found in the Callmanager 3.3 SRND
> > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/largeent/it/ese/srnd.html
> >
> > In order the for the blocking/permitting patterns to work as
> described, your
> > 'permit' patterns must be a closer match than your 'deny' patterns. The
> > "closest match" logic is best described in Chapter 9 of Paul
> Giralt's book
> > "Troubleshooting Cisco IP Telephony".
> >
> > Currently Dialed Number Analyzer actually uses its own match
> logic instead
> > of using that of the currently active ccm.exe process. This can lead to
> > incorrect results in very specific corner cases, such as yours.
> 95% of the
> > time, DNA should provide accurate results.
> >
> > /Wes
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> > > [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> Leonardo D'Urso
> > > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 6:45 PM
> > > To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > Subject: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > hi there,
> > >
> > > I have done this configuration:
> > >
> > > my phones has a css in which I have a route pattern that
> authorize all for
> > > the phone.
> > >
> > > I have user device profile in which I have configured a css with
> > > partitions that don't permit for example international calls.
> > >
> > > When I try to verify with Dialed number analyzer all works fine, the
> > > international call, that is NOT authorized match the rule and ends on
> > > bogus gateway.
> > >
> > > But when I do this making phone call the call is routed.
> > >
> > > Is this an Extension mobility limit? I have this configuration without
> > > extension mobility and all works fine.
> > >
> > > thanks in advance,
> > > Leonardo
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >

thanks for testing, I can only confirm that all works fine without
extension mobility, and with the same configuration that includes rp,css
and variable lenght phone numbers.

ciao,
Leonardo

--
Leonardo D'Urso alter.net Srl
e-mail: durso@alter.it Via Attilio Ambrosini, 177
VOICE: +39-06-5405740 I-00147 Roma
FAX: +39-06-5405883 Italy

On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wes Sisk wrote:

> Leonardo,
>
> I suspect ! is going to be a special case because it implies any digit, any
> number of digits. Therefore the idea of "better match" pretty much
> disappears.
>
> We typically use calculations to see which is "better match"
>
> Example:
>
> 91X = (1 possible match) * (1 possible match) * (10 possible matches) = 10
> 1XX = (1 possible match) * (10 possible matches) * (10 possible matches) =
> 100
>
> Therefore 91X is a closer match if both 9 and 1 are matched.
>
> However in the case of a variable length dialplan, this analysis does not
> hold up. I need to do a bit of testing, but I fear that solution was tested
> with the fixed length US dialplan in mind.
>
> /Wes
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leonardo D'Urso [mailto:durso@alter.it]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:09 AM
> > To: Wes Sisk
> > Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Wes, hi all
> >
> > oh no Leonardo again! ;-)
> >
> > I have read the chapter in online manual (chapter 7 page 8,9), and I have
> > read chapter 9 of Paul Girard: Troubleshooting ecc... I think my
> > configuration respect the closest match concept.
> >
> > I have the same configuration on another customer of mine, with a
> > difference, lines(DN) are defined statically on phones and no user device
> > profile is in use. In this case all works fine.
> >
> > This is an example of configuration in which I describe all of components:
> >
> > the phone can call everyone. So it has a css in which there is a partition
> > in which I have the rp 0.! that points to the voice gateway for this
> > location.
> >
> > the user device profile, in which I have the line, has a css in which I
> > have a partition in which I have a rp that blocks all calls to the
> > international. This route pattern is 0.00!
> >
> > when I call:
> >
> > 0001-555-5555555 (where the first zero is used to catch the line)
> >
> > the ccs of the user device profile defined into DN should match the block,
> > and then go to the bogus voice gateway.
> >
> > But what happens is that the call is routed to voice gateway, and so this
> > approach seems that don't works.
> >
> > Any idea?
> >
> >
> > thanks in advance.
> > Leonardo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wes Sisk wrote:
> >
> > > Leonard,
> > >
> > > It sounds like you are attemting use "An Alternative Approach
> > to Configuring
> > > Calling Search Spaces" found in the Callmanager 3.3 SRND
> > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/largeent/it/ese/srnd.html
> > >
> > > In order the for the blocking/permitting patterns to work as
> > described, your
> > > 'permit' patterns must be a closer match than your 'deny' patterns. The
> > > "closest match" logic is best described in Chapter 9 of Paul
> > Giralt's book
> > > "Troubleshooting Cisco IP Telephony".
> > >
> > > Currently Dialed Number Analyzer actually uses its own match
> > logic instead
> > > of using that of the currently active ccm.exe process. This can lead to
> > > incorrect results in very specific corner cases, such as yours.
> > 95% of the
> > > time, DNA should provide accurate results.
> > >
> > > /Wes
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> > > > [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> > Leonardo D'Urso
> > > > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 6:45 PM
> > > > To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > > Subject: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > hi there,
> > > >
> > > > I have done this configuration:
> > > >
> > > > my phones has a css in which I have a route pattern that
> > authorize all for
> > > > the phone.
> > > >
> > > > I have user device profile in which I have configured a css with
> > > > partitions that don't permit for example international calls.
> > > >
> > > > When I try to verify with Dialed number analyzer all works fine, the
> > > > international call, that is NOT authorized match the rule and ends on
> > > > bogus gateway.
> > > >
> > > > But when I do this making phone call the call is routed.
> > > >
> > > > Is this an Extension mobility limit? I have this configuration without
> > > > extension mobility and all works fine.
> > > >
> > > > thanks in advance,
> > > > Leonardo
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > >
>

Wes,

I apologize for pressing, but have you notice or is it this a good
argument for a tac query?
Please let me know.

thanks in advance.
Leonardo


On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wes Sisk wrote:

> Leonardo,
>
> I suspect ! is going to be a special case because it implies any digit, any
> number of digits. Therefore the idea of "better match" pretty much
> disappears.
>
> We typically use calculations to see which is "better match"
>
> Example:
>
> 91X = (1 possible match) * (1 possible match) * (10 possible matches) = 10
> 1XX = (1 possible match) * (10 possible matches) * (10 possible matches) =
> 100
>
> Therefore 91X is a closer match if both 9 and 1 are matched.
>
> However in the case of a variable length dialplan, this analysis does not
> hold up. I need to do a bit of testing, but I fear that solution was tested
> with the fixed length US dialplan in mind.
>
> /Wes
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leonardo D'Urso [mailto:durso@alter.it]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:09 AM
> > To: Wes Sisk
> > Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Wes, hi all
> >
> > oh no Leonardo again! ;-)
> >
> > I have read the chapter in online manual (chapter 7 page 8,9), and I have
> > read chapter 9 of Paul Girard: Troubleshooting ecc... I think my
> > configuration respect the closest match concept.
> >
> > I have the same configuration on another customer of mine, with a
> > difference, lines(DN) are defined statically on phones and no user device
> > profile is in use. In this case all works fine.
> >
> > This is an example of configuration in which I describe all of components:
> >
> > the phone can call everyone. So it has a css in which there is a partition
> > in which I have the rp 0.! that points to the voice gateway for this
> > location.
> >
> > the user device profile, in which I have the line, has a css in which I
> > have a partition in which I have a rp that blocks all calls to the
> > international. This route pattern is 0.00!
> >
> > when I call:
> >
> > 0001-555-5555555 (where the first zero is used to catch the line)
> >
> > the ccs of the user device profile defined into DN should match the block,
> > and then go to the bogus voice gateway.
> >
> > But what happens is that the call is routed to voice gateway, and so this
> > approach seems that don't works.
> >
> > Any idea?
> >
> >
> > thanks in advance.
> > Leonardo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wes Sisk wrote:
> >
> > > Leonard,
> > >
> > > It sounds like you are attemting use "An Alternative Approach
> > to Configuring
> > > Calling Search Spaces" found in the Callmanager 3.3 SRND
> > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/largeent/it/ese/srnd.html
> > >
> > > In order the for the blocking/permitting patterns to work as
> > described, your
> > > 'permit' patterns must be a closer match than your 'deny' patterns. The
> > > "closest match" logic is best described in Chapter 9 of Paul
> > Giralt's book
> > > "Troubleshooting Cisco IP Telephony".
> > >
> > > Currently Dialed Number Analyzer actually uses its own match
> > logic instead
> > > of using that of the currently active ccm.exe process. This can lead to
> > > incorrect results in very specific corner cases, such as yours.
> > 95% of the
> > > time, DNA should provide accurate results.
> > >
> > > /Wes
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> > > > [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> > Leonardo D'Urso
> > > > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 6:45 PM
> > > > To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > > Subject: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > hi there,
> > > >
> > > > I have done this configuration:
> > > >
> > > > my phones has a css in which I have a route pattern that
> > authorize all for
> > > > the phone.
> > > >
> > > > I have user device profile in which I have configured a css with
> > > > partitions that don't permit for example international calls.
> > > >
> > > > When I try to verify with Dialed number analyzer all works fine, the
> > > > international call, that is NOT authorized match the rule and ends on
> > > > bogus gateway.
> > > >
> > > > But when I do this making phone call the call is routed.
> > > >
> > > > Is this an Extension mobility limit? I have this configuration without
> > > > extension mobility and all works fine.
> > > >
> > > > thanks in advance,
> > > > Leonardo
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > >
>

ciao Lelio,

I'm using CCM 3.3.4 with os version 2.6.



On Tue, 25 May 2004, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:

> We are using a similar 'alternative' method on campus for our dial plan
> and would love to assist, but we are in the middle of a mass migration
> and have zero spare cycles.
>
> It seems that your system works properly when it's a regular phone, but
> breaks with extension mobility. In that case, I'd say a call to the TAC
> is in order.
>
> What version are you using?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Leonardo D'Urso
> To: Wes Sisk
> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 5:23 PM
> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
>
>
>
> Wes,
>
> I apologize for pressing, but have you notice or is it this a good
> argument for a tac query?
> Please let me know.
>
> thanks in advance.
> Leonardo
>
>
> On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wes Sisk wrote:
>
> > Leonardo,
> >
> > I suspect ! is going to be a special case because it implies any digit, any
> > number of digits. Therefore the idea of "better match" pretty much
> > disappears.
> >
> > We typically use calculations to see which is "better match"
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > 91X = (1 possible match) * (1 possible match) * (10 possible matches) = 10
> > 1XX = (1 possible match) * (10 possible matches) * (10 possible matches) =
> > 100
> >
> > Therefore 91X is a closer match if both 9 and 1 are matched.
> >
> > However in the case of a variable length dialplan, this analysis does not
> > hold up. I need to do a bit of testing, but I fear that solution was tested
> > with the fixed length US dialplan in mind.
> >
> > /Wes
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Leonardo D'Urso [mailto:durso@alter.it]
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:09 AM
> > > To: Wes Sisk
> > > Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Wes, hi all
> > >
> > > oh no Leonardo again! ;-)
> > >
> > > I have read the chapter in online manual (chapter 7 page 8,9), and I have
> > > read chapter 9 of Paul Girard: Troubleshooting ecc... I think my
> > > configuration respect the closest match concept.
> > >
> > > I have the same configuration on another customer of mine, with a
> > > difference, lines(DN) are defined statically on phones and no user device
> > > profile is in use. In this case all works fine.
> > >
> > > This is an example of configuration in which I describe all of components:
> > >
> > > the phone can call everyone. So it has a css in which there is a partition
> > > in which I have the rp 0.! that points to the voice gateway for this
> > > location.
> > >
> > > the user device profile, in which I have the line, has a css in which I
> > > have a partition in which I have a rp that blocks all calls to the
> > > international. This route pattern is 0.00!
> > >
> > > when I call:
> > >
> > > 0001-555-5555555 (where the first zero is used to catch the line)
> > >
> > > the ccs of the user device profile defined into DN should match the block,
> > > and then go to the bogus voice gateway.
> > >
> > > But what happens is that the call is routed to voice gateway, and so this
> > > approach seems that don't works.
> > >
> > > Any idea?
> > >
> > >
> > > thanks in advance.
> > > Leonardo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wes Sisk wrote:
> > >
> > > > Leonard,
> > > >
> > > > It sounds like you are attemting use "An Alternative Approach
> > > to Configuring
> > > > Calling Search Spaces" found in the Callmanager 3.3 SRND
> > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/largeent/it/ese/srnd.html
> > > >
> > > > In order the for the blocking/permitting patterns to work as
> > > described, your
> > > > 'permit' patterns must be a closer match than your 'deny' patterns. The
> > > > "closest match" logic is best described in Chapter 9 of Paul
> > > Giralt's book
> > > > "Troubleshooting Cisco IP Telephony".
> > > >
> > > > Currently Dialed Number Analyzer actually uses its own match
> > > logic instead
> > > > of using that of the currently active ccm.exe process. This can lead to
> > > > incorrect results in very specific corner cases, such as yours.
> > > 95% of the
> > > > time, DNA should provide accurate results.
> > > >
> > > > /Wes
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> > > > > [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Leonardo D'Urso
> > > > > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 6:45 PM
> > > > > To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > > > Subject: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > hi there,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have done this configuration:
> > > > >
> > > > > my phones has a css in which I have a route pattern that
> > > authorize all for
> > > > > the phone.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have user device profile in which I have configured a css with
> > > > > partitions that don't permit for example international calls.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I try to verify with Dialed number analyzer all works fine, the
> > > > > international call, that is NOT authorized match the rule and ends on
> > > > > bogus gateway.
> > > > >
> > > > > But when I do this making phone call the call is routed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this an Extension mobility limit? I have this configuration without
> > > > > extension mobility and all works fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks in advance,
> > > > > Leonardo
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > > > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

Leo,

I have not been able to test yet. I am not aware of any special
treatment of CSS when EM is used. Please open a TAC case.

/Wes

Leonardo D'Urso wrote:

>Wes,
>
>I apologize for pressing, but have you notice or is it this a good
>argument for a tac query?
>Please let me know.
>
>thanks in advance.
>Leonardo
>
>
>On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wes Sisk wrote:
>
>
>
>>Leonardo,
>>
>>I suspect ! is going to be a special case because it implies any digit, any
>>number of digits. Therefore the idea of "better match" pretty much
>>disappears.
>>
>>We typically use calculations to see which is "better match"
>>
>>Example:
>>
>>91X = (1 possible match) * (1 possible match) * (10 possible matches) = 10
>>1XX = (1 possible match) * (10 possible matches) * (10 possible matches) =
>>100
>>
>>Therefore 91X is a closer match if both 9 and 1 are matched.
>>
>>However in the case of a variable length dialplan, this analysis does not
>>hold up. I need to do a bit of testing, but I fear that solution was tested
>>with the fixed length US dialplan in mind.
>>
>>/Wes
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Leonardo D'Urso [mailto:durso@alter.it]
>>>Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:09 AM
>>>To: Wes Sisk
>>>Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi Wes, hi all
>>>
>>>oh no Leonardo again! ;-)
>>>
>>>I have read the chapter in online manual (chapter 7 page 8,9), and I have
>>>read chapter 9 of Paul Girard: Troubleshooting ecc... I think my
>>>configuration respect the closest match concept.
>>>
>>>I have the same configuration on another customer of mine, with a
>>>difference, lines(DN) are defined statically on phones and no user device
>>>profile is in use. In this case all works fine.
>>>
>>>This is an example of configuration in which I describe all of components:
>>>
>>>the phone can call everyone. So it has a css in which there is a partition
>>>in which I have the rp 0.! that points to the voice gateway for this
>>>location.
>>>
>>>the user device profile, in which I have the line, has a css in which I
>>>have a partition in which I have a rp that blocks all calls to the
>>>international. This route pattern is 0.00!
>>>
>>>when I call:
>>>
>>>0001-555-5555555 (where the first zero is used to catch the line)
>>>
>>>the ccs of the user device profile defined into DN should match the block,
>>>and then go to the bogus voice gateway.
>>>
>>>But what happens is that the call is routed to voice gateway, and so this
>>>approach seems that don't works.
>>>
>>>Any idea?
>>>
>>>
>>>thanks in advance.
>>>Leonardo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wes Sisk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Leonard,
>>>>
>>>>It sounds like you are attemting use "An Alternative Approach
>>>>
>>>>
>>>to Configuring
>>>
>>>
>>>>Calling Search Spaces" found in the Callmanager 3.3 SRND
>>>>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/largeent/it/ese/srnd.html
>>>>
>>>>In order the for the blocking/permitting patterns to work as
>>>>
>>>>
>>>described, your
>>>
>>>
>>>>'permit' patterns must be a closer match than your 'deny' patterns. The
>>>>"closest match" logic is best described in Chapter 9 of Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Giralt's book
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Troubleshooting Cisco IP Telephony".
>>>>
>>>>Currently Dialed Number Analyzer actually uses its own match
>>>>
>>>>
>>>logic instead
>>>
>>>
>>>>of using that of the currently active ccm.exe process. This can lead to
>>>>incorrect results in very specific corner cases, such as yours.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 95% of the
>>>
>>>
>>>>time, DNA should provide accurate results.
>>>>
>>>>/Wes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
>>>>>[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Leonardo D'Urso
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 6:45 PM
>>>>>To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>>Subject: [cisco-voip] css, partitions and extension mobility
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>hi there,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have done this configuration:
>>>>>
>>>>>my phones has a css in which I have a route pattern that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>authorize all for
>>>
>>>
>>>>>the phone.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have user device profile in which I have configured a css with
>>>>>partitions that don't permit for example international calls.
>>>>>
>>>>>When I try to verify with Dialed number analyzer all works fine, the
>>>>>international call, that is NOT authorized match the rule and ends on
>>>>>bogus gateway.
>>>>>
>>>>>But when I do this making phone call the call is routed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is this an Extension mobility limit? I have this configuration without
>>>>>extension mobility and all works fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>thanks in advance,
>>>>>Leonardo
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>>cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>>
>>>>>