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
  8% (4)
• B
  77% (41)
• D
  15% (8)

Explanation

Deploying a highly available SBC pair (option B) at each office provides true fault tolerance at the local level - if one SBC fails, its partner takes over without dropping service, and since each office has its own pair, a failure in Paris has no impact on London. Option A is a trap: configuring the two single SBCs (one per office) as a shared HA pair means that if Paris's SBC fails, London's SBC picks up the load - routing calls across offices and violating the requirement that calls traverse each user's respective office.

Office-specific voice routing policies (option C) are what actually enforce the "route through your own office" requirement - they bind Paris users to Paris SBCs and London users to London SBCs. Option D (a single policy for everyone) cannot make that per-office distinction, so calls could egress through the wrong office regardless of how well the SBCs are configured.

Memory tip: Think of it in two layers - infrastructure and policy. The infrastructure layer needs an HA pair per office (not shared across offices), and the policy layer needs one policy per office (not one policy for all). Both layers must be office-scoped to satisfy fault resistance and the routing requirement.

No community discussion yet for this question.