Interesting. Hundreds of millions of never saw that issue.   I wonder if that 
was a carrier specific setting.   Cause they did some really screwy things that 
I haven’t seen with other carriers


Kent

> On Mar 31, 2018, at 18:56, Anthony Holloway <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> Don't do that.  That's a sure fire way to invoking MTPs for flows that don't 
> need it, when your CUBE will happily inter-work Inband to OOB.
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:38 PM Kent Roberts <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Put the NTE first, or if you can only use NTE.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 30, 2018, at 9:10 PM, GR <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thx Anthony. Just an update, did that and interworking works fine between 
>>> kpml and rtp nte. 
>>> 
>>> Was enquiring abt digit drop to follow a proactive approach rather than 
>>> reactive.  So far its ok without that - but I still have few pending sites 
>>> so not implemented globally yet. 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On 17 Mar 2018, at 5:08 am, Anthony Holloway 
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I have had to add digit-drop to the dial-peers when calls were heading to 
>>>> CUC, but not 100% of the time.  As with a lot of things, don't configure 
>>>> something just to configure it.  Know that it's needed first, then 
>>>> configure it.  Else you end up with this giant configuration that you 
>>>> cannot explain half of what its doing.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:33 AM GR <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Anthony. So no need to configure digit drop ? Even if I am doing 
>>>>> RFC2833 on one leg and advertise both Inband and OOB on second leg. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 16 Mar 2018, at 2:10 am, Anthony Holloway 
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I was going to mention that CUBE doesn't support rtp-nte to sip-kpml 
>>>>>> interworking.  Weird, I know.  But that's how it was.  However, when I 
>>>>>> went to grab the link for my source, the table has been updated, and I 
>>>>>> see that this is now supported.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/voice/cube/configuration/cube-book/dtmf-relay.html#concept_264617919921874995299551391601561
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Therefore, I see no gotchas with enabling....well...maybe one gotcha.  
>>>>>> If you enable both RTP-NTE and SIP-KPML on a dial-peer, note that CUBE 
>>>>>> will advertise both, and the offer answer model dictates that CUBE will 
>>>>>> then not be able to choose or control the DTMF relay selected.  However, 
>>>>>> when CUBE receives an offer with multiple relays in it, it will choose 
>>>>>> which to use based on order....maybe.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Citations from that link:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "If multiple DTMF relay mechanisms are enabled on a SIP dial peer and 
>>>>>> are negotiated successfully, NOTIFY-based out-of-band DTMF relay takes 
>>>>>> precedence."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "If you configure more than one out-of-band DTMF method, preference goes 
>>>>>> from highest to lowest in the order of configuration."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "CUBE negotiates both rtp-nte and sip-kpml if both are supported and 
>>>>>> advertised in the incoming INVITE. However, CUBE relies on the rtp-nte 
>>>>>> DTMF method to receive digits and a SUBSCRIBE if sip-kpml is not 
>>>>>> initiated. CUBE still accepts SUBSCRIBEs for KPML. This prevents 
>>>>>> double-digit reporting problems at CUBE."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "CUBE selects DTMF relay mechanisms using the following priority:
>>>>>> sip-notify or sip-kpml (highest priority)
>>>>>> rtp-nte
>>>>>> None—Send DTMF in-band"
>>>>>> I recommend to read that entire document, or at least the chapter I 
>>>>>> linked, because it has some good info on it.  Of course, you'll want to 
>>>>>> test everything, because it's not out of reason to have to file a 
>>>>>> documentation defect.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:44 AM GR <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am having an issue with SIP provider only supporting rfc2833. The 
>>>>>>> CUBEs are configured only for rtp-nte on all dial-peers facing both the 
>>>>>>> provider and the CUCM internal network (multiple clusters)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Randomly one of the MGCP/h323 gateway is having issues, where it only 
>>>>>>> supports OOB and then further complications trying to resolve the 
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am planning to add sip kpml as well on top of rtp-nte to advertise 
>>>>>>> both inband and outofband DTMF methods towards our internal CUCM 
>>>>>>> network and let CUBE do inter-working in case where one leg is rfc2833 
>>>>>>> (carrier side) and other is kpml(internal network lets say MGCP 
>>>>>>> gateway). Trying to stay away from MTPs.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Any gotchas if I just go ahead and add kpml on top of existing rtp-nte 
>>>>>>> method (on CUBE dial-peers facing our internal network) as I don’t want 
>>>>>>> to break the setup where only inband is supported, hard to check in a 
>>>>>>> global deployment.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Any need to use digit-drop in case both inband and out of band digits 
>>>>>>> are sent? If required it will be only on dial-peers facing CUCM side? 
>>>>>>> Or this is not required as the provider only supports rfc2833.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> GR
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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