cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Announcements
Walkthrough Wednesdays
304
Views
35
Helpful
6
Replies
Highlighted
Rising star

Why is 9.@ Matching??

Hi

We are currently using 9.@ and I am looking to move away from it as per Cisco best practice. 

I created more specific route patterns, namely:

9.0[1-9]XXXXXXXXX

 

This pattern is a prefix of 9 followed by an 11 digit number which is fairly standard for the UK, 5 digit area code and 6 digit subscriber number.

 

However, its not matching this when I use DNA, its still hitting 9.@ and the one above shows as an Alternative Match!

 

I even moved the new RP above into a new partition on its own and put this partition inside the CSS at the very top so it hits this before the partition with 9.@ but its STILL not using it.

 

What am I doing wrong here? I want to leave 9.@ there for a while before we remove it. 

 

Cheers

6 REPLIES 6
Highlighted

Using the @ wildcard character in a route pattern requires additional consideration.

 

The number 92578912 matches both of the following route patterns: 9.@ and 9.XXXXXXX. Even though both of these route patterns seem to equally match the address, the 9.@ route pattern actually provides the closest match. The @ wildcard character encompasses many different route patterns, and one of those route patterns is [2-9]XXXXXX. Since the number 2578912 more closely matches [2-9]XXXXXX than it does XXXXXXX, the 9.@ route pattern provides the closest match for routing.

 

https://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/admin/3_1_2/ccmsys/a03rp.html

==Please rate all useful posts and mark as answer if it solves your issue==
Highlighted

Great answer @Nithin Eluvathingal (+5)

Better off to stay away from the abomination with @ route patterns. It’s nothing but trouble and so often misunderstood, as in this case.

Please rate all useful posts
Highlighted

I see, I assumed that they were not equal.

 

To me 9.0[1-9]XXXXXXXXX is a more specific match than 9.@ but as it uses underlying additional patterns from the numbering plan, I guess that assumption is incorrect.

 

Thanks for your answer.

 

Like I said, we are doing away with 9.@ but I need to make sure the more specific patterns work beforehand but sounds like I may not easily be able to do this. 

Highlighted

Make a list of all the number permutations you’ll need to test and work through them beforehand in a separate set of CSS and PT that holds the new pattern that doesn’t use @. Then when you’re convinced that it works as you want it make a cutover from 9.@ to the new specific RPs by moving the old RP to a PT that isn’t present in any CSS so that it would not be eligible for use. Once your certain it works you can get rid of the old RP.

Please rate all useful posts
Highlighted

This is  the best option moving to new RP .

==Please rate all useful posts and mark as answer if it solves your issue==
Highlighted

Good replies by the other two gentlemen here, but I'd like to also address the order of Partitions in the CSS.  The reason this didn't work for you is because the order only matters if there are two or more competing matching patterns which result in the same number of potential matches.

3XXX in SiteA-Pt
3XXX in SiteB-Pt

If there is not a tie to be broken by the order of partitions in the CSS, then really, the order of the CSS is unimportant.  Most systems I see do not have these types of competing patterns, so order rarely matters, and thus the order is largely cosmetic.  I.e., Here in the US, some people like to see the order go:

Internal
Local
Long Distance
International
Content for Community-Ad