Assume that the following requirement is to be implemented: If a U1900 user dials the number of a PSTN user, carrier A's trunk is preferred to route the call. When carrier A's network is faulty…

Question

Options

• A
  1. Set Office route selection code to 2 and Failure Processing Index to None.
• B
  1. Set Office route selection code to 2 and Failure Processing Index to None.
• C
  1. Set Office route selection code to 2 and Failure Processing Index to None.
• D
  1. Set Failure Processing Index to 0, Rerouting policy upon failure to Routing failure, and Selection

• A
  8% (3)
• B
  6% (2)
• C
  72% (26)
• D
  14% (5)

Explanation

Option C is correct because a proper failover configuration requires two chained route entries: the first entry sets the Office Route Selection Code to 1 (carrier A) with the Failure Processing Index pointing to the second entry, and the second entry sets the code to 2 (carrier B) with Failure Processing Index set to None - this creates the primary/fallback chain the requirement describes.

Note: The choices in your question appear to have a copy/paste formatting error (A, B, and C show identical text). Based on the context, the typical wrong distractors in this type of Huawei U1900 exam question fail in these ways:

• Option A likely sets carrier A's entry with Failure Processing Index = None, which breaks the failover chain - if carrier A fails, the call drops instead of rerouting.
• Option B likely reverses the order (carrier B first, carrier A second), violating the "carrier A preferred" requirement.
• Option D uses an incorrect rerouting policy ("Routing failure") or wrong index value, which triggers rerouting on all failures rather than cleanly falling back to carrier B's trunk.

Memory tip: Think of Failure Processing Index like a chain link - each link must point to the next route, and only the last link in the chain gets None. The preferred carrier always goes first, with its index pointing forward. If any entry in the middle has None, the chain breaks there.

No community discussion yet for this question.