Your company has offices in Paris and London. You are migrating from an on-premises PBX telephony solution to a Microsoft Teams Phone deployment that uses Direct Routing. You plan to use the…

Question

Options

• ADeploy one Session Border Controller SBC) to each office. Configure the SBCs as a high-
• BDeploy a highly available Session Border Controller (SBC) pair to each office.
• CConfigure voice routing policies for each office.
• DConfigure a single voice routing policy for all users.

• A
  84% (27)
• B
  6% (2)
• D
  9% (3)

Explanation

Deploying one SBC per office and configuring them as a geo-redundant HA pair (A) gives you both local PSTN breakout at each office and cross-site failover - if Paris goes down, London's SBC can absorb calls, and vice versa. Pairing this with per-office voice routing policies (C) is what actually enforces the requirement that each user's calls route through their respective office's SBC; without distinct policies, Teams has no way to prefer a local SBC over a remote one.

Option B is wrong because deploying a full HA pair at each office means 4 SBCs total - this provides intra-site redundancy, but not the geo-redundant failover between offices that the question is asking for, and it's unnecessarily costly for this two-site scenario. Option D is wrong because a single voice routing policy for all users cannot distinguish between Paris and London users, so it cannot guarantee local routing per office.

Memory tip: Think "one SBC guards each gate, voice routing tells each user which gate is theirs." The SBCs (A) provide resilience; the routing policies (C) provide locality - you need both.

No community discussion yet for this question.