Which three options are valid when Cisco Unified Customer Voice Portal comprehensive call flow and survivability service handles SIP REFER? (Choose three.)

Question

Options

• ASIP REFER label and SigDigits
• BSIP REFER with ICM router requery
• CSIP REFER with ICM script Send To VRU node
• DSIP REFER with custom SIP header
• ESIP REFER with routing label "rfxxxx" and standalone Cisco Unified CVP with ICM Lookup label
• FSIP REFER with ECC variable user.sip.transfer

• A
  81% (25)
• B
  3% (1)
• E
  10% (3)
• F
  6% (2)

Explanation

In Cisco Unified CVP's comprehensive call flow, SIP REFER transfers are handled through three supported mechanisms. Option A is valid because CVP can use a SIP REFER label combined with SigDigits to strip/match digits and determine the transfer destination within the routing logic. Option C is valid because an ICM script's Send To VRU node is a standard mechanism that redirects the call back through CVP for further treatment when a REFER is received. Option D is valid because CVP supports passing transfer information via custom SIP headers, giving developers a flexible way to carry routing data across the REFER transaction.

The distractors fail for specific reasons: B (ICM router requery) is a mechanism for re-querying the router mid-call on an already-established leg - it is not triggered by SIP REFER events. E misrepresents the label format; the "rfxxxx" label is a real CVP concept, but pairing it with a standalone CVP and ICM Lookup label describes an unsupported hybrid that doesn't apply to the comprehensive call flow's REFER handling. F (user.sip.transfer) is a fabricated ECC variable - CVP does use ECC variables extensively, but this specific variable is not a defined mechanism for REFER handling.

Memory tip: Remember "SIP REFER = SiD" - SigDigits (A), iCM Send To VRU (C), and Dcustom header (D). These are the three native CVP integration points; the wrong answers either describe unrelated ICM mechanisms (requery, ECC) or a mismatched architecture (standalone + lookup label).

No community discussion yet for this question.