I have only used SRV destination a little bit, but my CVP friends use them 
extensively.  I have never seen the option ping with SRV records act 
differently than I would have expected.

Do you have experiences where the whole dialpeer went down and other members of 
the SRV were still accessable?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Nick Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> That may work fine based on how the SRV and options pings are configured... 
> but if you are counting on an SRV record to point to another CCM sub when the 
> primary is down (etc...), options pings will likely take the whole DP down 
> when a single host in the SRV goes unreachable.
> 
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Erick Bergquist <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You could also look at adding keep alive (options ping) to the dial peers 
>> and call manager sip trunk with options mentioned above.
>> 
>> Do you mind sharing the tcl script?
>> 
>> Erick
>> 
>> 
>>> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Pawlowski, Adam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Nathan,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>                 Thanks, this looks to be exactly what I’m looking for, this 
>>> way I don’t convey the wrong message. It doesn’t seem like I can have more 
>>> than one option other than hunt or don’t hunt, and it seems to be proper to 
>>> let the telephony provider handle it. Cool. Thanks again.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Adam
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Nathan Richardson [mailto:[email protected]] 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 12:34 PM
>>> To: Pawlowski, Adam; '[email protected]'
>>> Subject: RE: Route Dial-Peer Based On Response
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> One thing that may help is to configure the “voice hunt” settings. For 
>>> example, you could put in “no voice hunt temp-fail” which would make the 
>>> router stop routing if it receives a cause code 41 from the CM so it would 
>>> skip your TCL script in that scenario and should send that code back to 
>>> your ITSP. It may even work to combine “no voice hunt all” with “voice hunt 
>>> unassigned-number” or something like that.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3t/voice/command/reference/vrht_v2_ps5207_TSD_Products_Command_Reference_Chapter.html#wp1190281
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> -Nathan Richardson
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
>>> Pawlowski, Adam
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 5:33 AM
>>> To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
>>> Subject: [cisco-voip] Route Dial-Peer Based On Response
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> [External Email]
>>> 
>>> Hey all,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>                 I’ve set up our CUBE routers to try and be a bit more 
>>> slick, so I am making use of e164 pattern maps, dial peer groups, and DNS 
>>> SRV lookups for redundancy/randomization. All that actually seems to be 
>>> working rather well. I have a requirement to make any inactive/unallocated 
>>> number in my UCM play a custome intercept. I did this, at least for now, by 
>>> setting up a secondary dial peer that matches with a higher preference than 
>>> my UCM peer, and it plays an announcement with a TCL script.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>                 I’d like to set this up so that if the UCM peer is down, or 
>>> if it receives some other code indicating a temporary failure, etc, I 
>>> either would like to bypass this peer so the code goes back to the ITSP, or 
>>> I can play a message saying something about technical difficulties, etc. 
>>> I’m not sure it’s possible to do this? The other way of doing this would be 
>>> to have the UCM itself with a translation or something to roll to an 
>>> audiotext mailbox, which is how we do this today, but it requires either 
>>> that we maintain translations for all numbers, or a generic one that will 
>>> answer to all extensions queried at the system which I don’t want to do 
>>> either.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>                 Any thoughts?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Adam Pawlowski
>>> 
>>> SUNY Buffalo NCS
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Reply via email to