H.323 Gateway, Dialpeer config & Tiger Billing

[dezoconnor]

Good Morning All,

Need to bounce an idea around if I may....  We have a client currently running CUCM 7.1.3, all servers and PRI's are located at site A.  Phones at site B are registered to the cucms over a LES cct which also has a H.323 gateway registered to the cucm's (no local breakout except in failover when calls will route via FXO).  Right, topology out of the way.  Recently configured PIN dialing so that end users can be given a code i.e 9.#12345@ so they can be billed individually for calls, works perfectly at site A.  However, at site B I need to implement the same so that users from site A when working at Site B can use the same codes.  Question is, can a dial-peer recognise the @ symbol or do I need to change the protocol on the gateway at site B to MGCP?

Cheers.

[Aaron Harrison]

Hi

@ is specific to CUCM - but it can be used to send calls to either H.323 or MGCP gateways. The gateways don't 'recnognize' it, but CUCM doesn't send it to them - it sends the numbers that were dialled that matched the @ pattern.

I'm not 100% clear on what you are asking to be honest.

You have 9.#12345@ as a route pattern - typically you would use (on an MGCP GW) a 'predot' discard, so the remamaining digits ('#12345@') would go to the MGCP gateway, so effectively direct to the PSTN. However that number wouldn't be valid on the PSTN would it?

So maybe you are doing a PreAt discard?

That could work for H.323, but if the gateway needed the 9 prefix then you would PreAt discard and Prefix a 9.

Regards

Aaron

[dezoconnor]

Hi Aaron,

Apologies, the PIN dialing at site A works perfectly because as you say I'm doing a pre @ discard and then readding the 9 to send the call to the VG's at site A for PSTN break out.  The Tiger billing solution records and maps the PIN's dialed to a user therefore we're able to bill clients for their calls.  However, at Site B this doesn't work because we were unable to send the full digits dialled across the LES link to route out the VG's at Site A.

Regards

[Aaron Harrison]

Hi

OK - so CUCM and the phones don't really care about your topology. LES or not shouldn't come into it.

And if you are saying (or I'm hearing you correctly) that the Site B users use the PRIs at Site A (expect for in SRST mode), then the problem may be the configuration of the route patterns/route lists/route groups used by Site B.

Also the registration of the gateway at Site B (h323/mgcp or not at all) doesn't matter if you aren't sending calls to it.

Can you describe your CUCM PSTN routing config? Do site B users have their own PSTN partitions/route patterns/route lists etc?

When you say 'were unable to send the full digits dialled across the LES link' do you mean when you dial out using an @ pattern you see some digits in debug isdn q931?

If you set up a non@ route pattern, that works OK?

[dezoconnor]

Hi Aaron,

Woods for the trees moment I think....!  Of course, the IP Phones won't even be using the VG at site B so the protocol doesn't even matter.  Just a simple case of amending the RP, RL, RG for those IP Phones at site B.  Simples...