Cisco 300-815 Exam - Topic 8 Question 64 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-815 exam

Question #: 64
Topic #: 8

Refer to the exhibit.

For long-distance calls, users must prefix their dialed number with ''91.'' The translation pattern was created to strip the 91 as the PSTN expects a 10- digit number. The PSTN also requires the calling number to be set to 9195551234. However, the service provider has said calls with a different calling number are being received. How is this issue resolved?

AChange the partition of the translation pattern from none to pstn_pt.

BEnable Force Authorization Code on the route pattern.

CDisable Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask on the route pattern.

DEnable Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask on the translation pattern.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C

by Brock at Jan 10, 2023, 11:41 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Hoa

6 months ago

Why would the service provider accept different numbers? That's odd!

upvoted 0 times

...

Catrice

6 months ago

Disagree, I feel like changing the partition is the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Miesha

7 months ago

Wait, are we sure the calling number is the issue?

upvoted 0 times

...

Louvenia

7 months ago

I think option D makes the most sense here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Margurite

7 months ago

Calls need the "91" prefix for long-distance.

upvoted 0 times

...

Timmy

7 months ago

I think the issue might be with the route pattern settings, but I'm not confident if force authorization codes would actually resolve the calling number problem.

upvoted 0 times

...

Celestina

7 months ago

I feel like enabling the external phone number mask could help, but I can't recall the exact implications of that setting on the translation pattern.

upvoted 0 times

...

Anthony

7 months ago

This seems similar to a practice question we did about calling party settings. I think disabling the external phone number mask might be the right move here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jacob

7 months ago

I remember we discussed translation patterns in class, but I'm not entirely sure how changing the partition affects the calling number.

upvoted 0 times

...

Harris

7 months ago

I'm a bit confused by the last few options. I'm not sure if a connection string can refer to multiple database instances or if the SID needs to be included. I'll have to think this through carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Whitley

7 months ago

This seems like a straightforward question. I'll focus on understanding the key differences between relational and non-relational databases to determine the correct answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lura

7 months ago

This one seems pretty straightforward. I'm pretty confident the answer is A - Trusted computing base (TCB).

upvoted 0 times

...

Audrie

7 months ago

I'm pretty sure routers operate at the network layer, so I'll go with B.

upvoted 0 times

...

Edelmira

8 months ago

Okay, I think I've got it. We need to use the map() method to extract the techName property, and then call forEach() to print each one. The answer should be B.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lynna

12 months ago

I'm leaning towards option A. Changing the partition of the translation pattern to 'pstn_pt' might be the way to go, but I'm curious to hear what the other candidates think.

upvoted 0 times

Stephane

10 months ago

I'm not sure, but maybe enabling the use of the external phone number mask could help.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elenora

11 months ago

I would go with option C, disabling the external phone number mask.

upvoted 0 times

...

Herman

11 months ago

I agree, changing the partition to 'pstn_pt' makes sense.

upvoted 0 times

...

Annamae

11 months ago

I think option A is the best choice.

upvoted 0 times

...

Glory

12 months ago

Haha, I bet the service provider is just trying to mess with the PSTN. Let's go with option D and see if that sorts out this 'different calling number' issue.

upvoted 0 times

Tawna

11 months ago

User 3: I think option D might be the solution to the issue.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alyce

11 months ago

User 2: Good idea, let's see if that fixes the problem.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mozell

11 months ago

User 1: Haha, I agree! Let's try option D.

upvoted 0 times

...

Val

1 year ago

Option C looks promising, but I'm not sure if disabling the 'Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask' on the route pattern is the right approach here. Shouldn't we be focusing on the translation pattern instead?

upvoted 0 times

Johnson

11 months ago

C) Disable Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask on the route pattern.

upvoted 0 times

...

Burma

11 months ago

B) Enable Force Authorization Code on the route pattern.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chantell

11 months ago

A) Change the partition of the translation pattern from none to pstn_pt.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jess

1 year ago

I think option D is the correct answer. Enabling the 'Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask' on the translation pattern will ensure that the calling number is set to the expected format of 9195551234.

upvoted 0 times

...

Emilio

1 year ago

But wouldn't disabling Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask on the route pattern also fix the issue?

upvoted 0 times

...

Santos

1 year ago

I disagree, I believe enabling Force Authorization Code on the route pattern would be the solution.

upvoted 0 times

...

Emilio

1 year ago

I think the issue can be resolved by changing the partition of the translation pattern to pstn_pt.

upvoted 0 times

...