I have a situation where I have configured TEHO or least cost routing for a customer who is running UCM 7.13. They have 4 PRIs in different Local Calling Areas. One is even in a different area code. I setup route filters for each PRI that matched the area code and office code that is a local call to that PRI.
I then have 9.@ route patterns that have one of these route filters used. I also have a 9.@ pattern with a long distance route filter defined as long distance direct dial exists, and area code exists.
The problem I am having is that some of the calls for the office codes that I have defined in the TEHO route filters are being ignored and routed as LD calls.
What I have determined is that when I create an office code pattern in a route filter clause as 32[0125789], not all the numbers in the [ ] will match.
If the office code to be matched is 328, it is ignored, and sent as a LD call. But 325 would match, and the call is routed out a local gateway.
I split that office code string into 2 clauses and the calls are routed normally. I split 32[0125789] into 32[0125] and 32[789].
The issue is that there are alot of other clauses like this one and will necessitate more route filters being created.
Has anyone else run into this issue? Is this a bug or a known limitation. I have not found anything under the route filter configuration guides about this.
Thanks.
