9.@ route pattern necessary?

[cooperben]

Just wondering if the 9.@ route pattern is absolutely necessary when all other standard route patterns are defined?  When I inherited our CMBE 5000 v8.5.1, all that was in there was 9.@ and 911.  I've since added specific route patterns for local/local 10-digit, LD, Intl, 911, and 3-digit services (411, etc.)  This has obviously given us more granular control.

Examples:

9.911

9.011!

9.[2-9]XXXXXX

9.1[2-9]XXXXXXXXX

9.1900! (blocked)

etc. etc. etc.

All partitions/CSS's set up and defined.  But I'm holding off on deleting the 9.@ pattern.  Before removing it, I'm just wondering if removing it is against best practice or going to cause me problems down the road?  We have a single gateway, a 3825 ISR with 2 PRIs into it.  Are there additional commands needed on the ISR once 9.@ is removed?  TIA

[Chris Deren]

No, it is not necessary if you have other route patterns that cover the same routing.  9.@ allows you to use Route Filters which can easily summarize multiple routes for example rather than using explicit route patterns. 

I would suggest looking at the route filter to see what it covers to ensure you have that covered with your other route patterns.

HTH,

Chris

[cooperben]

Thanks Chris.  There were no route filters ever defined.  Just a bunch of route patterns, all in the same RL, with one RG, all going out through the same GW.

Some users have complained of not being to dial internationally.  However, the 9.011! and 9.011!# patterns are defined, exist in the International_Calls_PT, and these users/DNs have this partition in their CSS.

[Chris Deren]

Hmm, I did not think you can have 9.@ Route Pattern defined without a Route Filter applied to it.  Well, if that is the case then then you should be able to safely get rid of them.

HTH,

Chris

[Joseph Martini]

You can use @ without a route filter applied to it.

[acampbell]

All,

My understanding is as Joe says you do not need the route filter but you do need a DIAL-PLAN  like NANP or GBNP etc.

As to deleting the 9.@ pattern.

I would recommend that a slight change to the pattern by adding an prefix that you do not expect to be dialled like:-

1) Change 9.@ to #*#9.@

2) See what the level of complaints from users is like.

3)a) If no complaints then delete the pattern

3)b) Change back to 9.@ if there are complaints and investigate if other route patteerns are needed.

Regards

Alex

[cooperben]

Thank you all.  I will make a subtle change to the 9.@ pattern and test with it.  RIght now in the Holidays is the perfect time, as many users are off.  I will reply back after some testing and then if there are any symptoms of having the pattern removed.

[cooperben]

Since removing the 9.@ pattern, I have received complaints that international calls faill with fast busy.  All other calls work fine. 

I have started a new thread.  Please see 'dial-peer config for international calling'