Cisco 300-815 Exam - Topic 7 Question 85 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-815 exam

Question #: 85
Topic #: 7

An administrator troubleshoots call failure in a new deployment and finds that the SIP INVITE messages sent to the service provider contain a diversion header with the user's 4-digit directory number. These 4-digit directory numbers range from 1000 to 9999. The service provider is rejecting the calls because it requires that the diversion header contain 10 digits. Which command on the Cisco Unified Border Element resolves this issue for all users?

AOption A

BOption B

COption C

DOption D

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: D

by Roy at Apr 23, 2024, 01:18 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Lashanda

9 months ago

I thought all providers accepted 4-digit numbers, guess I was wrong!

upvoted 0 times

...

Angelo

9 months ago

Wait, why are they using 4-digit numbers? That seems odd.

upvoted 0 times

...

Izetta

10 months ago

Totally agree with Penney, C seems correct!

upvoted 0 times

...

Penney

10 months ago

I think Option C is the right command for this.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kindra

10 months ago

The diversion header needs to be 10 digits, that's a must.

upvoted 0 times

...

Val

10 months ago

I think we discussed using a specific command to manipulate the headers, but I can't remember if it was in the context of the border element.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hermila

11 months ago

I feel like I should know this, but I can't recall the exact command. Was it related to the SIP profile settings?

upvoted 0 times

...

Yvette

11 months ago

This seems similar to a practice question we did on SIP headers. I think it might involve a prefix or something to make it 10 digits.

upvoted 0 times

...

Penney

11 months ago

I remember something about modifying the diversion header, but I'm not sure which command does that.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jeniffer

11 months ago

This is a good one. I think the answer is going to be about using a command to manipulate the diversion header, but I need to make sure I understand the details correctly.

upvoted 0 times

...

Delbert

11 months ago

I'm a bit confused by the different options. They all seem to involve some kind of configuration, but I'm not sure which one specifically addresses the issue with the diversion header.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lina

11 months ago

Okay, I think I've got it. The key is to find the command that can automatically add the necessary digits to the diversion header. Let me take a closer look at the options.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dusti

11 months ago

Hmm, the service provider requires 10-digit diversion headers, but the users have 4-digit directory numbers. I wonder if there's a way to expand the 4-digit numbers to 10-digit format.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jamal

11 months ago

This looks like a tricky one. I'll need to carefully review the options and think through the issue with the diversion header.

upvoted 0 times

...

Theron

11 months ago

Okay, I think I've got this. The file we need to edit is client.scv, and it's located in the $FWDIR/conf directory. I'm confident that's the right answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lisandra

11 months ago

Hmm, I remember learning about H.323 in class, but I can't recall all the specific protocols it uses. I'll have to think this through carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Craig

11 months ago

I'm leaning towards 'iox', but I feel like I've seen 'iox-service' used in some examples too. Can't recall clearly which is correct!

upvoted 0 times

...

Samira

11 months ago

This seems like a tricky one. I'll need to think through the service-orientation principles carefully to determine the correct answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ashanti

1 year ago

Hold on, I'm just going to measure the length of each option to see which one has exactly 10 digits. Science never fails!

upvoted 0 times

...

Pearlene

1 year ago

Oh man, I'm so tired of these SIP header issues. Time to call the Cisco TAC and let them figure it out for me!

upvoted 0 times

Clorinda

1 year ago

Option C

upvoted 0 times

...

Pauline

1 year ago

Option B

upvoted 0 times

...

Felicidad

1 year ago

Option A

upvoted 0 times

...

Micheal

1 year ago

Hmm, I think Option A is the way to go. Seems like the most straightforward solution to the problem.

upvoted 0 times

Nydia

1 year ago

User 3: I think Option A is the way to go as well.

upvoted 0 times

...

Reena

1 year ago

User 2: Yeah, Option A seems like the most straightforward solution.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mammie

1 year ago

User 1: I agree, Option A looks like the best choice here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lennie

1 year ago

Wow, this is a tricky one. I'm going to go with Option D, just to see what happens. You never know, it might be some secret Cisco hack!

upvoted 0 times

Alecia

1 year ago

Niesha: Let's try Option B then, can't hurt to explore all possibilities.

upvoted 0 times

...

Madelyn

1 year ago

User 3: I'm not so sure about Option D, maybe we should consider Option B instead.

upvoted 0 times

...

Niesha

1 year ago

User 2: Yeah, it's worth a try. Can't hurt to experiment with different options.

upvoted 0 times

...

Demetra

1 year ago

User 1: I think Option D might actually work, let's give it a shot.

upvoted 0 times

...

Norah

1 year ago

Option B looks like the right choice here. It allows me to prepend the area code to the diversion header, which should satisfy the service provider's requirement.

upvoted 0 times