Hi,

Have an issue where it takes 10-12 seconds for a call
to get placed out a gateway. It is a ISDN PRI and the
debug isdn q931 doesn't show activity until 10-12
seconds after the call is placed on IP Phone and when
we lower the T302 timer it gets placed to what T302 is
set to.

There are no conflicting or overlapping route patterns
that we can find, and we put in a route pattern for
the full number with no wildcards and same thing.

I've done a CCM detailed trace and am seeing large
delay between when the phone dials the number and when
it gets processed. Theres like a good 12 seconds in
trace where the call reference is not listed.

This is on CCM 4.02a SR2a.





__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hi Erick,

In the CCM trace look for the Digit Analysis Results, for example:

09/15/2005 16:37:19.435 CCM|Digit analysis: analysis
results|<CLID::StandAloneCluster><NID::10.10.10.3><CT::
1,100,119,1.499977><IP::10.10.21.7><DEV::SEP00115CBAD09E>
09/15/2005 16:37:19.435  CCM||PretransformCallingPartyNumber=9193

|CallingPartyNumber=9193
|DialingPartition=par-internal
|DialingPattern=9190
 |DialingRoutePatternRegularExpression=(9
190)
|DialingWhere=
|PatternType=Enterprise
 |PotentialMatches=NoPotentialMatchesExis
t

If it has  PotentialMatches=NoPotentialMatchesExist
 then CCM does not
have any other patterns it can match.  If it has something else, such
as PotentialMatches=PotentialMatchesExist or
 PotentialMatches=ExclusivelyOffnetPotent
ialMatchesExist, then this
means CCM has matched a pattern but can match other patterns if more
digits are dialed.

The easiest way I have found to find overlapping patterns is to go to
Route Plan > Route Plan Report.  Click on the "View in File" link on
the right side.  Then view the CSV file in Excel.  This provides a view
of the configured route plan in SQL.  If this doesn't help then you
will need to look at the dialing forest on the node that the phone is
registered to.  Follow these steps to dump the dialing forest:

- Enable the "Dialing Forest Dump Enabled" CallManager Service parameter
- Dial **##*4 on the IP Phone that is placing the test call - you will
hear reorder
- Search for "dialing forest" in the latest CCM trace on the node the
phone is registered to

Dumping the dialing forest can be CPU intensive in a large network.  I
have not had issues with this in smaller networks but do be careful.

Kevin

On Sep 15, 2005, at 11:52 PM, Erick Bergquist wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Have an issue where it takes 10-12 seconds for a call
> to get placed out a gateway. It is a ISDN PRI and the
> debug isdn q931 doesn't show activity until 10-12
> seconds after the call is placed on IP Phone and when
> we lower the T302 timer it gets placed to what T302 is
> set to.
>
> There are no conflicting or overlapping route patterns
> that we can find, and we put in a route pattern for
> the full number with no wildcards and same thing.
>
> I've done a CCM detailed trace and am seeing large
> delay between when the phone dials the number and when
> it gets processed. Theres like a good 12 seconds in
> trace where the call reference is not listed.
>
> This is on CCM 4.02a SR2a.
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>  ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

This is almost certainly interdigit timeout. Which, like you mentioned is us
ually caused by route patterns of varying length which have similar digits. 
However, in the case of 7 digit local dialing, you have to add a route filte
r that has 'local area code does not exist' as one of the clauses to your ro
ute pattern if you are using 9.@ in order for calls to be processed immediat
ely after the first 7 digits.



Let us know if this helps.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Erick Bergquist 
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net 
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:52 PM
Subject: [cisco-voip] Interdigit timeout issue for 7 digit calls 


Hi,

Have an issue where it takes 10-12 seconds for a call
to get placed out a gateway. It is a ISDN PRI and the
debug isdn q931 doesn't show activity until 10-12
seconds after the call is placed on IP Phone and when
we lower the T302 timer it gets placed to what T302 is
set to. 

There are no conflicting or overlapping route patterns
that we can find, and we put in a route pattern for
the full number with no wildcards and same thing. 

I've done a CCM detailed trace and am seeing large
delay between when the phone dials the number and when
it gets processed. Theres like a good 12 seconds in
trace where the call reference is not listed. 

This is on CCM 4.02a SR2a. 





__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com
 ________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Kevin,

Thanks. Yea, it does say ExclusivelyOffnet matches
exist.

Here is the info from the route list, view in file for
route patterns for call that are overlapping
(overlooked this before for some reason, didn't catch
it).

9.[2-9]XX[2-9]XXXXXX,,PT-10-DIGIT-DIALING,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL
9.[2-9]XX976XXXX,,PT-BLOCKED-TELESCAMS,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL
9.[2-9]XXXXXX,,PT-7-DIGIT-DIALING,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL

Is there a better way to make the 7 digit dialing rule
other then using rules for each local prefix? IE:
9.296XXXX, etc?

BTW, We also put in a route pattern of 9.2791234 and
still had issue and traces used that pattern. Or would
that overlap with the 10 digit pattern still?

Thanks

--- Kevin Thorngren <kthorngr@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Erick,
>
> In the CCM trace look for the Digit Analysis
> Results, for example:
>
> 09/15/2005 16:37:19.435 CCM|Digit analysis: analysis
>
>
results|<CLID::StandAloneCluster><NID::10.10.10.3><CT::
>
>
1,100,119,1.499977><IP::10.10.21.7><DEV::SEP00115CBAD09E>
> 09/15/2005 16:37:19.435
>  CCM||PretransformCallingPartyNumber=9193

> |CallingPartyNumber=9193
> |DialingPartition=par-internal
> |DialingPattern=9190
>  |DialingRoutePatternRegularExpression=(9
190)
> |DialingWhere=
> |PatternType=Enterprise
>  |PotentialMatches=NoPotentialMatchesExis
t
>
> If it has  PotentialMatches=NoPotentialMatchesExist

> then CCM does not
> have any other patterns it can match.  If it has
> something else, such
> as PotentialMatches=PotentialMatchesExist or
>
 PotentialMatches=ExclusivelyOffnetPotent
ialMatchesExist,
> then this
> means CCM has matched a pattern but can match other
> patterns if more
> digits are dialed.
>
> The easiest way I have found to find overlapping
> patterns is to go to
> Route Plan > Route Plan Report.  Click on the "View
> in File" link on
> the right side.  Then view the CSV file in Excel.
> This provides a view
> of the configured route plan in SQL.  If this
> doesn't help then you
> will need to look at the dialing forest on the node
> that the phone is
> registered to.  Follow these steps to dump the
> dialing forest:
>
> - Enable the "Dialing Forest Dump Enabled"
> CallManager Service parameter
> - Dial **##*4 on the IP Phone that is placing the
> test call - you will
> hear reorder
> - Search for "dialing forest" in the latest CCM
> trace on the node the
> phone is registered to
>
> Dumping the dialing forest can be CPU intensive in a
> large network.  I
> have not had issues with this in smaller networks
> but do be careful.
>
> Kevin
>
> On Sep 15, 2005, at 11:52 PM, Erick Bergquist wrote:
> 
> call 
> the 
> when 
> T302 is 
> patterns 
> for 
> when 
> in 
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip 
>
>


 ________________________________________
__________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

We went with a 9.@ with local area code does not exist filter and then added
 another with a filter that of local area code = 519. (our local area code) 
We basically let the PSTN notify the user if they dialed a number not in our
 exchange etc. 

Our dial plan consists entirely of 9.@ with filters rather than the manual e
ntry of the 9.[2-9]XXXXXX sorta thing. 

I spoke to a number of TAC engineers at Networkers and CIPTUG and couldn't g
et a straight answer as to which is better or worse or if there are any cave
ats to choosing one over the other.

I wouldn't mind hearing comments from the group about the two options.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Erick Bergquist 
To: Kevin Thorngren 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net 
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Interdigit timeout issue for 7 digit calls 



Kevin,

Thanks. Yea, it does say ExclusivelyOffnet matches
exist.

Here is the info from the route list, view in file for
route patterns for call that are overlapping
(overlooked this before for some reason, didn't catch
it).

9.[2-9]XX[2-9]XXXXXX,,PT-10-DIGIT-DIALING,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL
9.[2-9]XX976XXXX,,PT-BLOCKED-TELESCAMS,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL
9.[2-9]XXXXXX,,PT-7-DIGIT-DIALING,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL

Is there a better way to make the 7 digit dialing rule
other then using rules for each local prefix? IE:
9.296XXXX, etc?

BTW, We also put in a route pattern of 9.2791234 and
still had issue and traces used that pattern. Or would
that overlap with the 10 digit pattern still?

Thanks

--- Kevin Thorngren <kthorngr@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Erick,
> 
> In the CCM trace look for the Digit Analysis
> Results, for example:
> 
> 09/15/2005 16:37:19.435 CCM|Digit analysis: analysis
>  
>
results|<CLID::StandAloneCluster><NID::10.10.10.3><CT::
> 
>
1,100,119,1.499977><IP::10.10.21.7><DEV::SEP00115CBAD09E>
> 09/15/2005 16:37:19.435
>  CCM||PretransformCallingPartyNumber=9193

> |CallingPartyNumber=9193
> |DialingPartition=par-internal
> |DialingPattern=9190
>  |DialingRoutePatternRegularExpression=(9
190)
> |DialingWhere=
> |PatternType=Enterprise
>  |PotentialMatches=NoPotentialMatchesExis
t
> 
> If it has  PotentialMatches=NoPotentialMatchesExist

> then CCM does not  
> have any other patterns it can match.  If it has
> something else, such  
> as PotentialMatches=PotentialMatchesExist or  
>
 PotentialMatches=ExclusivelyOffnetPotent
ialMatchesExist,
> then this  
> means CCM has matched a pattern but can match other
> patterns if more  
> digits are dialed.
> 
> The easiest way I have found to find overlapping
> patterns is to go to  
> Route Plan > Route Plan Report.  Click on the "View
> in File" link on  
> the right side.  Then view the CSV file in Excel. 
> This provides a view  
> of the configured route plan in SQL.  If this
> doesn't help then you  
> will need to look at the dialing forest on the node
> that the phone is  
> registered to.  Follow these steps to dump the
> dialing forest:
> 
> - Enable the "Dialing Forest Dump Enabled"
> CallManager Service parameter
> - Dial **##*4 on the IP Phone that is placing the
> test call - you will  
> hear reorder
> - Search for "dialing forest" in the latest CCM
> trace on the node the  
> phone is registered to
> 
> Dumping the dialing forest can be CPU intensive in a
> large network.  I  
> have not had issues with this in smaller networks
> but do be careful.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> On Sep 15, 2005, at 11:52 PM, Erick Bergquist wrote:
>  
> call 
> the 
> when 
> T302 is 
> patterns 
> for 
> when 
> in 
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip 
> 
> 


 ________________________________________
__________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
 ________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

This person i'm helping did it this way to keep it
simple...  they have another site with same route
patterns in other partitions that doesn't have this
issue for local calls. I'm going to try to get a trace
from them of that for comparison. WOuld think it would
have same problem since the patterns are same.


--- Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:

> We went with a 9.@ with local area code does not
> exist filter and then added another with a filter
> that of local area code = 519. (our local area code)
> We basically let the PSTN notify the user if they
> dialed a number not in our exchange etc.
>
> Our dial plan consists entirely of 9.@ with filters
> rather than the manual entry of the 9.[2-9]XXXXXX
> sorta thing.
>
> I spoke to a number of TAC engineers at Networkers
> and CIPTUG and couldn't get a straight answer as to
> which is better or worse or if there are any caveats
> to choosing one over the other.
>
> I wouldn't mind hearing comments from the group
> about the two options.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Erick Bergquist
>   To: Kevin Thorngren
>   Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>   Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 10:50 AM
>   Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Interdigit timeout issue
> for 7 digit calls
>
>
>
>   Kevin,
>
>   Thanks. Yea, it does say ExclusivelyOffnet matches
>   exist.
>
>   Here is the info from the route list, view in file
> for
>   route patterns for call that are overlapping
>   (overlooked this before for some reason, didn't
> catch
>   it).
>
>
>
9.[2-9]XX[2-9]XXXXXX,,PT-10-DIGIT-DIALING,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL
>
>
9.[2-9]XX976XXXX,,PT-BLOCKED-TELESCAMS,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL
>
>
9.[2-9]XXXXXX,,PT-7-DIGIT-DIALING,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL
>
>   Is there a better way to make the 7 digit dialing
> rule
>   other then using rules for each local prefix? IE:
>   9.296XXXX, etc?
>
>   BTW, We also put in a route pattern of 9.2791234
> and
>   still had issue and traces used that pattern. Or
> would
>   that overlap with the 10 digit pattern still?
>
>   Thanks
>
>   --- Kevin Thorngren <kthorngr@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> analysis 
>
>
results|<CLID::StandAloneCluster><NID::10.10.10.3><CT:: 
>
>
1,100,119,1.499977><IP::10.10.21.7><DEV::SEP00115CBAD09E> 
>  PotentialMatches=NoPotentialMatchesExist
 
>
>
 PotentialMatches=ExclusivelyOffnetPotent
ialMatchesExist, 
> other 
> "View 
> Excel. 
> node 
> the 
> in a 
> networks 
> wrote: 
> a 
> and 
> 10-12 
> and 
> pattern 
> thing. 
> large 
> and 
> seconds 
>  ________________________________________
_______ 
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip 
>
>
>    ________________________________________
__________
>   Do You Yahoo!?
>   Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
>   http://mail.yahoo.com
>    ________________________________________
_______
>   cisco-voip mailing list
>   cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Could be the way they setup CSS and Partitions that they are not seeing
the same problems.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Erick Bergquist
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:44 AM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi; Kevin Thorngren
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Interdigit timeout issue for 7 digit calls

This person i'm helping did it this way to keep it
simple...  they have another site with same route
patterns in other partitions that doesn't have this
issue for local calls. I'm going to try to get a trace
from them of that for comparison. WOuld think it would
have same problem since the patterns are same.


--- Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:

> We went with a 9.@ with local area code does not
> exist filter and then added another with a filter
> that of local area code = 519. (our local area code)
> We basically let the PSTN notify the user if they
> dialed a number not in our exchange etc.
>
> Our dial plan consists entirely of 9.@ with filters
> rather than the manual entry of the 9.[2-9]XXXXXX
> sorta thing.
>
> I spoke to a number of TAC engineers at Networkers
> and CIPTUG and couldn't get a straight answer as to
> which is better or worse or if there are any caveats
> to choosing one over the other.
>
> I wouldn't mind hearing comments from the group
> about the two options.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Erick Bergquist
>   To: Kevin Thorngren
>   Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>   Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 10:50 AM
>   Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Interdigit timeout issue
> for 7 digit calls
>
>
>
>   Kevin,
>
>   Thanks. Yea, it does say ExclusivelyOffnet matches
>   exist.
>
>   Here is the info from the route list, view in file
> for
>   route patterns for call that are overlapping
>   (overlooked this before for some reason, didn't
> catch
>   it).
>
>
>
9.[2-9]XX[2-9]XXXXXX,,PT-10-DIGIT-DIALING,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL
>
>
9.[2-9]XX976XXXX,,PT-BLOCKED-TELESCAMS,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL
>
>
9.[2-9]XXXXXX,,PT-7-DIGIT-DIALING,Route,DAYTON-RL,DAYTON-RL
>
>   Is there a better way to make the 7 digit dialing
> rule
>   other then using rules for each local prefix? IE:
>   9.296XXXX, etc?
>
>   BTW, We also put in a route pattern of 9.2791234
> and
>   still had issue and traces used that pattern. Or
> would
>   that overlap with the 10 digit pattern still?
>
>   Thanks
>
>   --- Kevin Thorngren <kthorngr@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> analysis 
>
>
results|<CLID::StandAloneCluster><NID::10.10.10.3><CT:: 
>
>
1,100,119,1.499977><IP::10.10.21.7><DEV::SEP00115CBAD09E> 
>  PotentialMatches=NoPotentialMatchesExist
 
>
>
 PotentialMatches=ExclusivelyOffnetPotent
ialMatchesExist, 
> other 
> "View 
> Excel. 
> node 
> the 
> in a 
> networks 
> wrote: 
> a 
> and 
> 10-12 
> and 
> pattern 
> thing. 
> large 
> and 
> seconds 
>  ________________________________________
_______ 
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip 
>
>
>    ________________________________________
__________
>   Do You Yahoo!?
>   Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
>   http://mail.yahoo.com
>    ________________________________________
_______
>   cisco-voip mailing list
>   cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
 ________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]