A customer explains that calls are failing to route from Avaya Aura® Session Manager (SM) A (managed by Avaya Aura® System Manager (SMGR) A) to an Avaya Aura® Session Manager (SM) B (managed by…

Question

Options

• ASM B is defined as a SIP Entity of type "other" +Entity Link, Dial Pattern and Routing Policy.
• BSM B is defined as a SIP Entity of type "Session Manager" +Entity Link, Dial Pattern and Routing
• CSM B is defined as a SIP Entity of type "Session Manager" +Entity Link.
• DSM B is defined as a SIP Entity of type "other" +Entity Link.

• A
  11% (5)
• B
  80% (35)
• C
  2% (1)
• D
  7% (3)

Explanation

Option B is correct because when configuring inter-domain routing between two Session Managers managed by different System Managers, SM B must be defined as a SIP Entity of type "Session Manager" - not "other" - since Avaya treats SM-to-SM connections differently from generic SIP devices. Beyond just the SIP Entity and Entity Link (which establish the SIP trunk connection), you also need a Dial Pattern (to match the dialed digits) and a Routing Policy (to map those digits to the destination entity); without both, the call has no routing logic to follow.

Why the distractors fail:

• A uses type "other," which is reserved for non-SM SIP devices (e.g., media gateways, SIP endpoints) - using it for SM B means Avaya won't apply SM-specific trust and routing behaviors.
• C has the correct entity type but omits Dial Pattern and Routing Policy, so calls would never be matched and forwarded.
• D has both the wrong entity type ("other") and is missing Dial Pattern and Routing Policy - doubly incomplete.

Memory tip: Think "SM needs the full stack - Type + Link + Pattern + Policy." If any layer is missing, the call drops. The type must match what it is (Session Manager), and routing requires all three supporting objects.

No community discussion yet for this question.