Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] remote 7941 phones on Proctor labs

[Chris Kagadis (kagadis.com)]

I don't believe the 7941 is selectable as a configurable phone, by default,
on CM 4.1.  In order to set up a 7941, you have to install a device pack
(ciscocm.4-1-DevPack-59.exe) .  After you do this, you should be able to go
into CM, see it as a selectable device, and install.  The 7940, by
contrast, is able to be selected and configured by default in this version.
On 4.2, the 7941, 7961, etc are included and able to be installed out of the
box.

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Hardesty, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
>
> All, I am checking to see if you have had issues with using 7941 phones
> connecting to the call managers.  I have had issues over the past couple of
> runs and finally I swapped out a couple of 7941 phones with 7940/7960 series
> phones and they worked like a charm.  The 7941 phones seem to work fine
> registering to CME but they were not happy registering to call manager. The
> characteristic of the problem is that the phones will register and
> unregister on a regular basis.  In addition, when the phones show registered
> in Call Manager the phone button templates do not seem to load.  The clock
> on the phone will show correct but no line appearance is available. At
> times, I actually had softkeys on the phone but again no line appearances.
>
>
>
> Any others have similar issue?  Did you find a workaround with the 7941
> phones?
>
>
>
> *Scott Hardesty | Cisco Engineer | MidAtlantic | Presidio Networked
> Solutions*
>
> *7601 Ora Glen Drive, Suite 100, Greenbelt, MD  20770 |
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> *D: 301.313.2041 | C: 443.789.1219 | www.presidio.com*
>
> **
>
>
>
>


-- 
Chris Kagadis

[OSL | CCIE_Voice] remote 7941 phones on Proctor labs

[Hardesty, Scott]

 All, I am checking to see if you have had issues with using 7941 phones
connecting to the call managers.  I have had issues over the past couple
of runs and finally I swapped out a couple of 7941 phones with 7940/7960
series phones and they worked like a charm.  The 7941 phones seem to
work fine registering to CME but they were not happy registering to call
manager. The characteristic of the problem is that the phones will
register and unregister on a regular basis.  In addition, when the
phones show registered in Call Manager the phone button templates do not
seem to load.  The clock on the phone will show correct but no line
appearance is available. At times, I actually had softkeys on the phone
but again no line appearances.

 

Any others have similar issue?  Did you find a workaround with the 7941
phones?


 
Scott Hardesty | Cisco Engineer | MidAtlantic | Presidio Networked Solutions
7601 Ora Glen Drive, Suite 100, Greenbelt, MD  20770 | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
D: 301.313.2041 | C: 443.789.1219 | http://www.presidio.com/

 

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Stop routing on unallocated number serviceparam

[Ricardo Arevalo]

You are right Stephen...

It didn't work for me either!

So... either this parameter is for other function, or just for Intercluster
truks.. as CallManager help says:

  *Stop Routing on Unallocated Number Flag :*
  *Stop Routing on Unallocated Number Flag :* This parameter determines
routing behavior for intercluster trunk calls to an unalloc ted 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.
This is a required field.
Default: true.


I even worked with two diferente gateways H323, but the result was the
same... parameter set to true, and the call still is established when the
gateway of the first RG in the list is down...

I dont want to think this is an issue of vmware image, and dont have real
callmanager (available) to test it!

 i think we have homework...

So... Jonny... forget what i just told you!!!


//r.a.


On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Ricardo Arevalo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> 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 (bas

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Stop routing on unallocated number serviceparam

[Ricardo Arevalo]

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] 
>
> *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
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Stop routing on unallocated number serviceparam

[Stephen Collinson]

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   

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   

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

 

 

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Stop routing on unallocated number service param

[Ricardo Arevalo]

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] 
>> *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
>>
>>
>

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Stop routing on unallocated number service param

[jonny vegas]

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] 
> *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
>
>

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Stop routing on unallocated number service param

[Michael Shavrov]

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 
  To: 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

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] MGCP Gateway POTS dial-peer

[Chris Parker]

It is needed on T1 CAS, FXO and FXS ports, but not on T1 PRI since it is 
doing layer3 protocol tunneling.


Balamurugan Singaram wrote:

Hi,
 
For Cisco IOS Software Release 12.3(7)T or later the Pots dial-peer 
configuration for MGCP gateway should like below or even "service 
mgcpapp" is not needed ? Could you please correct me if I am wrong ?
 
dial-peer voice 10 pots

service mgcpapp
incoming called-number .
direct-inward-dial
port 1/0:15
 
Thanks,

Bala.



New Email addresses available on Yahoo! 
 


Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.
Hurry before someone else does! 

[OSL | CCIE_Voice] Stop routing on unallocated number service param

[jonny vegas]

Anyone got scenarios where we would specifically use this param.

Thanks

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] MGCP Gateway POTS dial-peer

[Cardwell, Mark]

 Only if you are putting analog puts under MGCP control  do you need the
POTS peer under service of MGCPAPP.

 

Cheers!

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mo
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 5:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] MGCP Gateway POTS dial-peer

 

I had read somewhere you don't need service MGCPAPP under dial-peer for
getting the MGCP to  work , I think it was on cisco forum . and the
reason was when MGCP fallback happens . 

you can do a search on that one , I tested this in LAB and without
"Service MGCPAPP" everything worked fine even when on SRST mode . but I
will test today with "MGCPAPP" and "call application alternate" to see
what happens.

 

Regards.

//Mo

 

 

 

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Balamurugan Singaram
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi,

 

For Cisco IOS Software Release 12.3(7)T or later the Pots dial-peer
configuration for MGCP gateway should like below or even "service
mgcpapp" is not needed ? Could you please correct me if I am wrong ?

 

dial-peer voice 10 pots 
service mgcpapp 
incoming called-number .
direct-inward-dial 
port 1/0:15 

 

Thanks,

Bala.

 


 
Mark Cardwell | Systems Engineer | MidAtlantic | Presidio Networked Solutions
7601 Ora Glen Drive, Suite 100, Greenbelt, MD  20770 | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
D: 571.225.0132 | http://www.presidio.com/

 



New Email addresses available on Yahoo!
 
Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and
@rocketmail.
Hurry before someone else does!

 

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] MGCP Gateway POTS dial-peer

[Mo]

I had read somewhere you don't need service MGCPAPP under dial-peer
for getting the MGCP to  work , I think it was on cisco forum . and the
reason was when MGCP fallback happens . you can do a search on that one , I
tested this in LAB and without "Service MGCPAPP" everything worked fine even
when on SRST mode . but I will test today with "MGCPAPP" and "call
application alternate" to see what happens.

Regards.
//Mo




On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Balamurugan Singaram
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> For Cisco IOS Software Release 12.3(7)T or later the Pots dial-peer
> configuration for MGCP gateway should like below or even "service mgcpapp"
> is not needed ? Could you please correct me if I am wrong ?
>
> dial-peer voice 10 pots
> service mgcpapp
> incoming called-number .
> direct-inward-dial
> port 1/0:15
>
> Thanks,
> Bala.
>
> --
>  New Email addresses available on Yahoo!
> 
> Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.
> Hurry before someone else does!
>