[cisco-voip] variable-length translation pattern
Hi all, I have two translation pattern within the same partition (cucm 9.x). They are: 1XXX 1! When an incoming call from external sip gateway comes in with called number (say) 1234, the matched translation is 1!. At first, I thought that 1!, being less specific than 1XXX, should not being matched. Reading through Cisco Collaboration System 9.x Solution Reference Network Designs (SRND) http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/collab09/clb09/dialplan.html, I saw this: When determining the number of matched strings for a variable-length pattern, Unified CM takes into account only the number of matched strings that are equal in length to the number of digits dialed. Assuming a user dials 1311 and we have patterns 1XXX, 1[2-3]XX, and 13!, the following table shows the number of matched strings of these potentially matching patterns*In this example the variable-length pattern 13! is selected as the best match*. Changing temporarily the translation pattern with a leading # and then going back to the original form, the pattern 1XXX started to be matched. What do you think, guys? is this a bug or are 1! and 1XXX equal-precision matches from cucm point of view? Thank you ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] variable-length translation pattern
The reference from the SRND was only to make clear the origin of my suspect. Initially I tought that 1XXX has higher priority than 1! but now, after reading the SNRD, I'm not that sure. Of course the pattern from the SRND examples are different from mine but the concept still applies imo. I was trying to receive some confirmation/denial of my suspect. 2014-12-09 17:41 GMT+01:00 Bill Talley btal...@gmail.com: Your patterns are both 1 followed by a wildcard. The SRNDs examples are NOT 1 followed by a wildcard, they are 1 followed by more specific wildcards or digits. 1! Is NOT equal to 12! Sent from an Apple iOS device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude my typtos. On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:35 AM, daniele visaggio visaggio.dani...@gmail.com wrote: Always from the SRND: [...] This does not mean that the urgent pattern has a higher priority than other patterns; the closest-match logic described in the section on Call Routing in Unified CM still applies. For example, assume the route pattern 1XX is configured as urgent and the pattern 12! is configured as a regular route pattern. If a user dials 123, Unified CM will not make its routing decision as soon as it receives the third digit because even though 1XX is an urgent pattern, it is not the best match (10 total patterns matched by 12! versus 100 patterns matched by 1XX). Unified CM will have to wait for inter-digit timeout before routing the call because the pattern 12! allows for more digits to be input by the user. Both my translation patterns have urgent priority enabled, so this aspect should not matter. I do not understand if 1XXX has higher priority than 1! or viceversa, given 1234 as called number. 2014-12-09 16:09 GMT+01:00 Bill Talley btal...@gmail.com: I would think it will always match 1! because of the urgent priority setting. Keep in mind the example you gave from the SRND list three different translation patterns. The two you have are the same as far as the first two digits, no? Sent from an Apple iOS device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude my typtos. On Dec 9, 2014, at 5:59 AM, daniele visaggio visaggio.dani...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I have two translation pattern within the same partition (cucm 9.x). They are: 1XXX 1! When an incoming call from external sip gateway comes in with called number (say) 1234, the matched translation is 1!. At first, I thought that 1!, being less specific than 1XXX, should not being matched. Reading through Cisco Collaboration System 9.x Solution Reference Network Designs (SRND) http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/collab09/clb09/dialplan.html, I saw this: When determining the number of matched strings for a variable-length pattern, Unified CM takes into account only the number of matched strings that are equal in length to the number of digits dialed. Assuming a user dials 1311 and we have patterns 1XXX, 1[2-3]XX, and 13!, the following table shows the number of matched strings of these potentially matching patterns*In this example the variable-length pattern 13! is selected as the best match*. Changing temporarily the translation pattern with a leading # and then going back to the original form, the pattern 1XXX started to be matched. What do you think, guys? is this a bug or are 1! and 1XXX equal-precision matches from cucm point of view? Thank you ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] variable-length translation pattern
If urgent priority wasn't involved, then the interdigital timeout would apply, thus giving you more time to dial and the system time to assess a more accurate, competing match. Since urgent priority applies here, the system will not wait to assess further digit input and there is no further comparison beyond a second digit since it automatically matches the 1! translation pattern. Sent from an Apple iOS device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude my typtos. On Dec 9, 2014, at 10:58 AM, daniele visaggio visaggio.dani...@gmail.com wrote: The reference from the SRND was only to make clear the origin of my suspect. Initially I tought that 1XXX has higher priority than 1! but now, after reading the SNRD, I'm not that sure. Of course the pattern from the SRND examples are different from mine but the concept still applies imo. I was trying to receive some confirmation/denial of my suspect. 2014-12-09 17:41 GMT+01:00 Bill Talley btal...@gmail.com: Your patterns are both 1 followed by a wildcard. The SRNDs examples are NOT 1 followed by a wildcard, they are 1 followed by more specific wildcards or digits. 1! Is NOT equal to 12! Sent from an Apple iOS device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude my typtos. On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:35 AM, daniele visaggio visaggio.dani...@gmail.com wrote: Always from the SRND: [...] This does not mean that the urgent pattern has a higher priority than other patterns; the closest-match logic described in the section on Call Routing in Unified CM still applies. For example, assume the route pattern 1XX is configured as urgent and the pattern 12! is configured as a regular route pattern. If a user dials 123, Unified CM will not make its routing decision as soon as it receives the third digit because even though 1XX is an urgent pattern, it is not the best match (10 total patterns matched by 12! versus 100 patterns matched by 1XX). Unified CM will have to wait for inter-digit timeout before routing the call because the pattern 12! allows for more digits to be input by the user. Both my translation patterns have urgent priority enabled, so this aspect should not matter. I do not understand if 1XXX has higher priority than 1! or viceversa, given 1234 as called number. 2014-12-09 16:09 GMT+01:00 Bill Talley btal...@gmail.com: I would think it will always match 1! because of the urgent priority setting. Keep in mind the example you gave from the SRND list three different translation patterns. The two you have are the same as far as the first two digits, no? Sent from an Apple iOS device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude my typtos. On Dec 9, 2014, at 5:59 AM, daniele visaggio visaggio.dani...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I have two translation pattern within the same partition (cucm 9.x). They are: 1XXX 1! When an incoming call from external sip gateway comes in with called number (say) 1234, the matched translation is 1!. At first, I thought that 1!, being less specific than 1XXX, should not being matched. Reading through Cisco Collaboration System 9.x Solution Reference Network Designs (SRND), I saw this: When determining the number of matched strings for a variable-length pattern, Unified CM takes into account only the number of matched strings that are equal in length to the number of digits dialed. Assuming a user dials 1311 and we have patterns 1XXX, 1[2-3]XX, and 13!, the following table shows the number of matched strings of these potentially matching patternsIn this example the variable-length pattern 13! is selected as the best match. Changing temporarily the translation pattern with a leading # and then going back to the original form, the pattern 1XXX started to be matched. What do you think, guys? is this a bug or are 1! and 1XXX equal-precision matches from cucm point of view? Thank you ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] variable-length translation pattern
Doh, sorry. ! Is variable length. I was thinking single digit Sent from an Apple iOS device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude my typtos. On Dec 9, 2014, at 10:58 AM, daniele visaggio visaggio.dani...@gmail.com wrote: The reference from the SRND was only to make clear the origin of my suspect. Initially I tought that 1XXX has higher priority than 1! but now, after reading the SNRD, I'm not that sure. Of course the pattern from the SRND examples are different from mine but the concept still applies imo. I was trying to receive some confirmation/denial of my suspect. 2014-12-09 17:41 GMT+01:00 Bill Talley btal...@gmail.com: Your patterns are both 1 followed by a wildcard. The SRNDs examples are NOT 1 followed by a wildcard, they are 1 followed by more specific wildcards or digits. 1! Is NOT equal to 12! Sent from an Apple iOS device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude my typtos. On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:35 AM, daniele visaggio visaggio.dani...@gmail.com wrote: Always from the SRND: [...] This does not mean that the urgent pattern has a higher priority than other patterns; the closest-match logic described in the section on Call Routing in Unified CM still applies. For example, assume the route pattern 1XX is configured as urgent and the pattern 12! is configured as a regular route pattern. If a user dials 123, Unified CM will not make its routing decision as soon as it receives the third digit because even though 1XX is an urgent pattern, it is not the best match (10 total patterns matched by 12! versus 100 patterns matched by 1XX). Unified CM will have to wait for inter-digit timeout before routing the call because the pattern 12! allows for more digits to be input by the user. Both my translation patterns have urgent priority enabled, so this aspect should not matter. I do not understand if 1XXX has higher priority than 1! or viceversa, given 1234 as called number. 2014-12-09 16:09 GMT+01:00 Bill Talley btal...@gmail.com: I would think it will always match 1! because of the urgent priority setting. Keep in mind the example you gave from the SRND list three different translation patterns. The two you have are the same as far as the first two digits, no? Sent from an Apple iOS device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude my typtos. On Dec 9, 2014, at 5:59 AM, daniele visaggio visaggio.dani...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I have two translation pattern within the same partition (cucm 9.x). They are: 1XXX 1! When an incoming call from external sip gateway comes in with called number (say) 1234, the matched translation is 1!. At first, I thought that 1!, being less specific than 1XXX, should not being matched. Reading through Cisco Collaboration System 9.x Solution Reference Network Designs (SRND), I saw this: When determining the number of matched strings for a variable-length pattern, Unified CM takes into account only the number of matched strings that are equal in length to the number of digits dialed. Assuming a user dials 1311 and we have patterns 1XXX, 1[2-3]XX, and 13!, the following table shows the number of matched strings of these potentially matching patternsIn this example the variable-length pattern 13! is selected as the best match. Changing temporarily the translation pattern with a leading # and then going back to the original form, the pattern 1XXX started to be matched. What do you think, guys? is this a bug or are 1! and 1XXX equal-precision matches from cucm point of view? Thank you ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
