Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Standard Local Route List/Group ?

2010-03-21 Thread Mike Brooks
Yes, I understand in the real world the new method has tons of advantages in regards to simplifying the dialplan if designed properly. But for the LAB the new method in my opinion has far less flexibility. *2 examples:* 1. If I need backup gateways for a route pattern then "standard rl/rg" would

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Standard Local Route List/Group ?

2010-03-21 Thread Otto Sanchez
Hi Mike, I would get used to the new features and the new way to tackle the dial plan, as they, in many cases will optimize the call routing configurations, lets think about your example, if you would have used cd xform patterns, only one route pattern and rl/ rg would have been used, also think i

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Standard Local Route List/Group ?

2010-03-21 Thread Mike Brooks
Thanks Otto. Yes I would not use standard local route groups if I had the option not to, but am exploring methods if forced to use standard local route groups based on requirements of the lab. For call routing what was your approach... old school ..or new school ? and why ? Thanks, Mike Bro

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Standard Local Route List/Group ?

2010-03-21 Thread Otto Sanchez
Hi Mike, If using old school method, I think you wouldn't be using local route group concept as well, right?. In that case you will need two separate RP, two different RL/RG, in which case you can perform manipulations in RG within RL and send the leading 9 only to the h.323 gw, If still want to

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Standard Local Route List/Group ?

2010-03-21 Thread Mike Brooks
ahh..yes very good point... I have been moving away from the "new school" routing methods lately because of some of the flexibility issues I have ran into while using it. For instance ANI manipulation based on the type of call. I do prefer sticking to the "old school" routing method if possible,

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Standard Local Route List/Group ?

2010-03-21 Thread Randall Saborio
Mike (sorry, missed to copy the list on first try), You are missing one option, which is the one I like most. For almost all situations, I would go about using Calling Party Transformations and Called Party Transformations. Since these are device specific, you would make a Called Party Transform

[OSL | CCIE_Voice] Standard Local Route List/Group ?

2010-03-21 Thread Mike Brooks
Just want to know how most would handle this type of scenario. It appears there are multiple ways to configure this. 9.[2-9]XX -> Standard Local RL (must strip predot because HQ is mgcp gw) *HQ Device Pool:* Standard Local Route Group: HQ-MGCP-RG *BR1 Device Pool:* Standard Local Route Gr