Sorry, I have no idea how this flag is related to my original question. Can you explain?
*Stop Routing on Unallocated Number Flag:* [image: Required Field] This parameter determines routing behavior for intercluster trunk calls to an unallocated number. An unallocated number represents a dialed directory number that does not exist in a Cisco cluster. Valid values specify True or False. When the parameter is set to True and a call that is being routed to a remote Cisco cluster through a route list is released by a remote Cisco CallManager because of the unallocated number, a local Cisco CallManager will stop routing the call to a next device in the route list. When the parameter is set to False, the local Cisco CallManager will route the call to the next device. On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:10 AM, GRAFL Philipp <philipp.gr...@nextiraone.at>wrote: > Try in CCM-Service parameter: Stop routing on unallocated number flag = > false. > > > > > > > > *Von:* ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com [mailto: > ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com] *Im Auftrag von *Nara Shikamaru > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 09. Juli 2009 18:08 > *An:* OSL Group > *Betreff:* [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Question about route lists and mixing MGCP > +H323 route groups > > > > I'm working on a situation whereby a route list has two route groups, each > contain end points with different call controls. Primary is H323, secondary > is MGCP. I've run into an unfortunate shortcoming that I hope I'm wrong > abount. In order to get calls routed to the second route group in the list, > it LOOKS like the H323 end point has to be completely inaccessible. In > other words, it's not enough that the PRI is down; the whole device needs to > be unreachable. I suspect this is due to the fact that on an H323 gateway > the PRI is not being backhauled to CUCM so the cluster has no way of knowing > that the circuit is down, so it continues to be engaged. I would LIKE to > set up a situation whereby if the PRI is not functional, the second route > group in the list is used. Does this mean that I would have to configure > the first gateway as MGCP instead? > > > -- > -Shikamaru > -- -Shikamaru
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
