+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2
    #1

    Default no e.164 register for 911 services

    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
    Reply With Quote Quote  


  2. Login/register to remove this advertisement.
  3. Senior Member pitviper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Right Coast, US
    Posts
    1,295

    Certifications
    CCNP:Voice, CCNP:R+S, CCNA:R+S, CCNA:V(IIUC), CCNA:S, CCENT, CNSS 4011
    #2
    Quote Originally Posted by clownlike View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  4. Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2
    #3
    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!
    Last edited by clownlike; 03-04-2010 at 02:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  5. Senior Member pitviper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Right Coast, US
    Posts
    1,295

    Certifications
    CCNP:Voice, CCNP:R+S, CCNA:R+S, CCNA:V(IIUC), CCNA:S, CCENT, CNSS 4011
    #4
    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.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

+ Reply to Thread

Social Networking & Bookmarks