![]() The VG310 is configured as an MGCP gateway in CUCM. I looked through both the debugs, the CUCM MGCP gateway config, and the config on the VG310. However, there may be some issues with that config that I'm working through as time permits. I was asked to look into why the first 12 ports won't register and I'm making a lot of assumptions about this VG's configs. Thank you for your assistance and guidance!Ī colleague of mine originally configured this VG310 before moving to another team. The ports registered (to CM2), including the first 12 ports that would not retain their registration (ports 0/0/0 through 0/0/11). I then added the other 2 CUCM subscribers that were in the CUCM config to the ip host section. The ports that were registered before (ports 0/0/12 through 0/0/23) were in a Rejected state. VG310(config)# ccm-manager config server X.X.X.X (where X.X.X.X is the config server's IP address).VG310(config)# no ccm-manager config server X.X.X.X (where X.X.X.X is the config server's IP address).VG310(config)# no dial-peer voice 999xxx pots (for each line).Fixed the ip host line with the correct IP address. ![]() The config would help, but I think there are a few things to go after here first, such as removing the host entry and ensuring the config server is pointing to a node with the TFTP service enabled. No I haven't seen this issue either and that's why I was asking if you make a call from port 0/0/0, does the output reflect that port 0/0/0 has the call? No, I don't think the CM Group would be an issue, but I would tend to ensure registration on the VG matches up with the CM Group as it will keep it straight in your head. Let me know if you need to review the full config and I'll mask off the identifying info and align it with the example and debugs (masked). If 10.X.X.10 is a TFTP server, that should be fine.Ĭould the CM Group not matching the VG310 configuration be the problem with maintaining registration for these ports? I've never seen where a port is configured on CUCM and the VG is requesting a file for the wrong port before. I would suggest removing this config as it creates a static DNS entry, and an incorrect one at that.Ĭcm-manager config server 10.X.X.10 <-shouldn't this be the 1st CUCM in the CM Group, which would be 10.X.X.1Īs per the Command Reference guide, the ccm-manager config server command specifies the IP address of the TFTP server from which the XML config files are downloaded. Ip host CM1 10.X.X.2 <-note that this is CM3's IP address but CM1's name Media Gateway Control Protocol packets debugging is onĬall Manager config events debugging is onĬall Manager config errors debugging is onĪ snippet from the debugs is attached with IP addresses and domains changed. Media Gateway Control Protocol errors debugging is on Media Gateway Control Protocol events debugging is on, trace level Verbose Port 0/0/5 is not configured at all in CUCM. I'm not sure what else would result in the debugs showing a config file being pushed to port 0/0/5 when I was configuring 0/0/0. My cable tech swears he has checked the wiring and cabling twice (on the Amphenol and cabling to the fax). I've come here to see if anyone can tell me definitively what my debugs show. I have a TAC case open but the TAC engineer is not responsive and provides no updates when asked. Using a butt-set, the port was configured and dial-tone could be heard but then suddenly stops (port unregisters) and does not produce dial-tone again unless the config in CUCM for the port is deleted and recreated (which just repeats the adverse symptoms).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |