Options
no e.164 register for 911 services
clownlike
Member Posts: 2 ■□□□□□□□□□
Hello,
I read this in a CVoice study book:
Note. When dealing with services numbers, such as 911, make sure to include the no e.164 register command.
Q.1 Why do you have to do that?
In addition an example is set:
Router(config)#dial-peer voice 911 pots
Router(config-dial-peer)#destination pattern 911
Router(config-dial-peer)#prefix 911
Router(config-dial-peer)#no e.164 register
Router(config-dial-peer)#session target ras
Q.2 Does that session target in a Pots d-p make any sense or it's just a misprint?
Thanks
I read this in a CVoice study book:
Note. When dealing with services numbers, such as 911, make sure to include the no e.164 register command.
Q.1 Why do you have to do that?
In addition an example is set:
Router(config)#dial-peer voice 911 pots
Router(config-dial-peer)#destination pattern 911
Router(config-dial-peer)#prefix 911
Router(config-dial-peer)#no e.164 register
Router(config-dial-peer)#session target ras
Q.2 Does that session target in a Pots d-p make any sense or it's just a misprint?
Thanks
Comments
-
Options
pitviper
Member Posts: 1,376 ■■■■■■■□□□
Hello,
I read this in a CVoice study book:
Note. When dealing with services numbers, such as 911, make sure to include the no e.164 register command.
Q.1 Why do you have to do that?
In addition an example is set:
Router(config)#dial-peer voice 911 pots
Router(config-dial-peer)#destination pattern 911
Router(config-dial-peer)#prefix 911
Router(config-dial-peer)#no e.164 register
Router(config-dial-peer)#session target ras
Q.2 Does that session target in a Pots d-p make any sense or it's just a misprint?
Thanks
Looks like a botched example to me! I don't think ras is an option for a POTS dial-peer, they probably meant VOIP. As for the E.164 registration (should be "no register e164"), that's basically telling the gatekeeper not to register the number - I have no clue why they are showing this on a 911 match since more then likely you would be sending the 911 call out of a local POTS trunk anyways.CCNP:Collaboration, CCNP:R&S, CCNA:S, CCNA:V, CCNA, CCENT -
Optionsclownlike
Member Posts: 2 ■□□□□□□□□□
Hello pitviper,
I agree the example is wrong. However I think the wrong part is the "ras" command (in addition to the "no resgister e164" order as you said). It should be changed by a "port" statement. However I think it should be a Pots d-p since those are the ones the GW is going to send to the GK once registered, right? And that is what is going to be stopped by the "no register" command. At least That would make sense to me.
What I still don't understand is why you would want to do that with services numbers like 911.
Do you (or anyone) have any idea?
Thanks! -
Optionspitviper
Member Posts: 1,376 ■■■■■■■□□□
Yes, if we're looking at an outgoing dial-peer to the PSTN then this would be good:
dial-peer voice 911 pots
destination-pattern 911
prefix 911 (or "forward-digits 3", or "forward-digits all")
port 0/0/1
no register e164
The "no register e164" will tell the gateway to NOT register the destination-pattern w/the gatekeeper.
That makes sense. I wasn't sure why they would be sending a 911 call to the gatekeeper via the ras command to begin with.CCNP:Collaboration, CCNP:R&S, CCNA:S, CCNA:V, CCNA, CCENT