Stephen, I think i have tested it.. dont remember now, i always set this parameter to false... I still have 1 hour in this lab, will re-test it and let you know.
//r.a. On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Stephen Collinson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Ricardo, > > > > Have you tested this scenario? > > > > I did this type of test get different results from you. This scenario does > not seem to be controlled by this particular parameter. > > > > Changing value form TRUE to FALSE and back did not impact the CCM trying GW > after GK fails. > > > > I shut the serial and I also tested shutting the lo 0, to which GK signals. > > > > Also restarted service on separate tests just to make sure. > > > > Thanks again. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Ricardo Arevalo > *Sent:* 25 October 2008 18:49 > *To:* jonny vegas > *Cc:* ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com > *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Stop routing on unallocated number > serviceparam > > > > Jonny, > > > > Lets say that you hace an extension 3001 in BR2, BR2 and CCM are registered > to GK, the normal path from 1001 in CCM to 3001 in BR2 y through GK, that > means first RG in the RL. > > > > Now... suddenly the BR2-WAN is down, or BR2 get unregistered from GK for > any reason (no gateway command in br2 for example) > > > > The CCM sends an arq to GK, since GK now does not know about BR2 nor its > extensions, it sends back to CCM an arj, meaning unknown destination. > > If this option (Stop routing on unallocated number ) is set to false in CCM > service parameters, the CCM does not stop there, instead, it will look for > the next RG in the RL, which could be local gateway, let say in HQ the 6608 > T1/Card of T1 Port in BR1... > > > > Hope this help.... let us know if doesn't > > > > //r.a. > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:55 PM, jonny vegas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Michael, > > Thanks for the response, much appreciated. > > You say it covers ANY scenario where the GW or GK can not complete the > call. Is this correct? > > My understanding was it comes into play when the cause code returned for a > call failure is 'unallocated number'. Something like ISDN cause code 0x81. > > Apologies for not being clear in my original mail. > > What I was asking was specific scenarios where it may actually be of use, > in our sort of environment. > > For example. > RL with GK primary and GW secondary. > > I dial 3009 - an unassigned number at BR2. > > The call is attempted via the GK first. The far end responds unallocated. > > If this param is set to FALSE then it will try the GW. > > But since the number is unallocated there is no point in setting this param > and trying to reach the unallocated number a second time, is there? > > What I am looking for is a scenario where this param is actual of use, in > our environment. > > Many thanks. > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Michael Shavrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Everyone uses it. Basically what it does - when call goes to a gateway or > gatekeeper, and the gateway cannot complete the call (for whatever reason - > remote side is down, no bandwidth, etc.), CallManager continues searching > for other Route Grous in the Route List. Without this parameter (when it set > to True), if CallManager receives "Unallocated Number" signal, it will stop > searching for other "paths" and give you fast busy (basically gateway > redundancy will not work). > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* jonny vegas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com> > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 10:51 AM > > *Subject:* [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Stop routing on unallocated number service > param > > > > Anyone got scenarios where we would specifically use this param. > > Thanks > > > > >
