Callcentric Backup - Using Anveo with the Obi for E911 and DID
rsriram22:
so for S0 prefix, can someone confirm if the rule should read:
Physical Interfaces -> Phone 1 -> OutboundCallRoute = {911S0:sp1}
thanks
ianobi:
rsriram22,
Yes, that is the correct format. I'm not convinced it will make any difference, but it should do no harm. I guess it's not going to be easy to test to see what difference it makes!
Edit: This is wrong. It will do harm!
ianobi:
WARNING!
Ignore my last post. This was too important not to test.
If you have 911 in the Phone Port DigitMap and 911S0 in the Phone Port OutboundCallRoute, then they do not match and 911 will not be sent out. If you have a xx. rule in any DigitMap, then it may be processed by that and sent out after a ten second delay on whatever DigitMap picks it up first.
Do not use S0 in the Phone Port OutboundCallRoute. It is only useful in Trunk DigitMaps (li, sp1, sp2 etc).
I used a dummy number to test this. I would be glad if others would also test and report back.
lhm.:
The following test # works for me with about a 2 second delay. {(<922S0:1424279xxxx>):sp1},
HMishra:
Ok, I did make changes to Physical Interfaces -> Phone 1 -> DigitMap by adding S0 below as indicated.
([1-9]x?*(Mpli)|[1-9]S9|[1-9][0-9]S9|911S0|**0|***|#|**8(Mbt)|**1(Msp1)|**2(Msp2)|**3(Msp3)|**4(Msp4)|**9(Mpp)|(Mpli))
I had plans to get this tested by conducting another prearranged 911 test however, coincidence or not, this added some latency to my incoming calls. That is, the calling phone would show my Anveo called phone ringing upto 3 rings before it really started ringing at my end. The calls did complete with great quality but I was not comfortable with this added latency, so reverted the changes back.
As I said above, I am not sure if there is a logical explanation to it or a complete coincidence but I repeated it 2 times with the same results.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page