Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Cisco 300-815 Exam - Topic 13 Question 118 Discussion

Calls are not working when sent from a Cisco Unified Border Element to a service provider. After investigating the logs, the engineer notes that the Cisco Unified Border Element is sending the extension only. How is the issue addressed in the configuration?
D) request invite sip-header diversion modify
A) voice class request sip-header diversion
B) sip-header contact modify
C) voice class request sip-header modify

Cisco 300-815 Exam - Topic 13 Question 118 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-815 exam
Question #: 118
Topic #: 13
[All 300-815 Questions]

Calls are not working when sent from a Cisco Unified Border Element to a service provider. After investigating the logs, the engineer notes that the Cisco Unified Border Element is sending the extension only. How is the issue addressed in the configuration?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

by Sommer at Nov 22, 2025, 12:38 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 300-815 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Nieves
4 months ago
I agree with B. Contact header is crucial for routing.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lyndia
5 months ago
I’m unsure. This is tricky. I’d go with A for safety.
upvoted 0 times
...
Miss
5 months ago
C could work too. Modifying the request might fix it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malika
5 months ago
I lean towards B. Modifying the contact header seems key.
upvoted 0 times
...
Geraldine
5 months ago
I think it's option A. It makes sense for handling diversions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ora
5 months ago
I disagree, it has to be C) voice class request sip-header modify.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alishia
5 months ago
Wait, are we really just sending the extension? That sounds off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Devora
6 months ago
Not sure about that, seems like D) request invite sip-header diversion modify could work too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Isaac
6 months ago
Definitely A) voice class request sip-header diversion!
upvoted 0 times
...
Joesph
6 months ago
I think it's B) sip-header contact modify.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nobuko
7 months ago
Gotta love those Cisco configuration puzzles. I'm going with C, can't go wrong there.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashon
7 months ago
Haha, I bet the engineer was scratching their head on this one. C is the answer for sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ashton
7 months ago
D seems like the most comprehensive option, modifying the diversion header is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashon
7 months ago
I think B is the way to go, modifying the contact header should fix the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gladys
7 months ago
I’m leaning towards option A, but I’m not completely confident. I remember it had to do with handling diversion headers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thaddeus
7 months ago
I feel like the answer might be related to the "request invite" part, but I can't recall the exact command.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leatha
8 months ago
I think we practiced a similar question where we had to modify SIP headers for call routing. Could it be option B?
upvoted 0 times
...
Ulysses
8 months ago
I remember something about modifying SIP headers, but I'm not sure which command specifically addresses the extension issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carolann
8 months ago
I'm pretty confident that option D, "request invite sip-header diversion modify," is the right choice here. That should allow us to modify the SIP headers to include the full number and resolve the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Albina
8 months ago
This seems straightforward. The Cisco Unified Border Element is not including the full number in the SIP headers, so we need to modify the SIP headers to fix that. Option C or D looks like the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tesha
8 months ago
Okay, let me think this through. If the Cisco Unified Border Element is only sending the extension, then we need to modify the SIP headers to include the full number. I'd go with option D to handle that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Melita
8 months ago
Option C looks like the right choice to modify the SIP header.
upvoted 0 times
...
Pearly
9 months ago
D sounds plausible, but I feel it's too specific.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kristeen
9 months ago
I'm a bit confused here. Is the problem that the Cisco Unified Border Element is not including the full number in the SIP headers? I'm not sure which option would be the best approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Berry
10 months ago
I think the issue is related to how the Cisco Unified Border Element is handling the SIP headers, so I'd focus on options C and D.
upvoted 0 times
Pura
4 months ago
I think we should stick with C or D for this issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Micah
4 months ago
Has anyone tried option A? It might help too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Howard
9 months ago
D could also work, but I'm leaning towards C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Barrie
9 months ago
I agree, it's definitely about the SIP headers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Karima
9 months ago
C seems like a solid choice for modifying the headers.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel