Clarification Needed: Effect of "Transform Mask" entry in a Route Group

[MitelInMyBlood]

CUCM 8.6

Am pretty sure it works this way, so just wanting confirmation/clarification. (Cisco documentation is really vague on this)

If I send calls to a Route List where the only member of the list is a Route Group which has a phone number hard coded in the "Transform Mask" field (and other fields, such as discard digits, etc are blank) it is my understanding that only the digits contained in the Transform Mask will be outpulsed on the trunk, rather than appended or prepended to the digits I'm sending to the RL. In other words, an entry in the "TRANSFORM MASK" field serves to replace the digits that are otherwise sent to the Rg, rather than appended or prepended to.

Do I understand this correctly? (MGCP trunk)

Thanks



Original MUG/NAMU Charter Member

 

[whykap]

Called party transform mask will modify/overwrite the outgoing call digits the caller enters.

 

[MitelInMyBlood]

Thanks! I was 90% sure that's how it worked, but got into a discussion about it with a coworker who did not think it worked that way, then after looking at the cryptic documentation to try to prove his or my interpretation we were both completely confused. Cisco must hire out-of-work attorneys to write their docs so they are sufficiently ambiguous as to be capable of being interpreted either way. Of course the software has occasional ambiguities as well, where an application functionality may change to exactly the opposite function in the next rev of code, under the guise of a bugswat. In that way the ambiguous documentation is always correct, (thereby saving on printing costs) but code specific. You know you were just handed a ticket for that merry-go-round when TAC has to mock it up in the lab before they will answer.



Original MUG/NAMU Charter Member

 

[whykap]

when in doubt test it out!!!!

 

[MitelInMyBlood]

Problem is you seldom have the luxury of TIME and calling TAC can sometimes tie you up for hours when you barely have 5 minutes to spare. Everyone is spread too thin these days.

Original MUG/NAMU Charter Member

 

[whykap]

I don't disagree but why would you call tac to explain a feature? If you don't understand the documentation (which is often unclear, but not only to cisco docs), set it up and test it out.
You would do that anyway, you wouldn't just throw a new feature or change into production without testing its functionality.

 

[MitelInMyBlood]

You are of course correct. However in this particular case I had put in this programming as directed by my new 911 system vendor (Amcom) whose tech had explained it to me. I was OK with their explanation, but a coworker (Lead tech) was questioning it since his understanding was that it would either append or prepend digits to the call rather than do a full absorb & replace (which is exactly what it does). He was reasonably certain that it either prepended or appended the dialed digits and I said no, it "transforms" the complete string of digits no matter what it sees, it will send out only 911 and nothing else. He was expecting to see "Discard Digits" which in this case is <None> and so was confused by it. Hence the discussion ensued and the only supporting documentation either of us could locate (Cisco Press) and even the internal Help system both provided similar, but totally ambiguous explanations, which for us both each coming from 25+ years on Mitel is frustrating since their docs were usually very explicit & unambiguous. (Honestly Cisco's docs have had us beating our heads against the wall several times trying to obtain a clear understanding of exactly what they're trying to say - they just don't seem to be very well written - they're unclear). As far as testing goes, since it's 911 and on a production system we can't very easily go poking around without going through all the steps to recreate the scenario on another route group & route list to play with. It would be much easier if we had a lab, which we don't, so....

Thanks again for your help

Original MUG/NAMU Charter Member