home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!telecom-request
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:32:39 GMT
- From: sgd@tfm.com (Stephen Diercouff)
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
- Subject: Re: Hunt Groups
- Message-ID: <telecom13.21.11@eecs.nwu.edu>
- Organization: tfm Associates, Ltd.
- Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 21, Message 11 of 13
- Lines: 28
-
- stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes:
-
- > In article <telecom13.10.7@eecs.nwu.edu> rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob
- > Boudrie) writes:
-
- >> Is it possible for two numbers serviced by the same physical CO to be
- >> placed on a hunt group even though they has different exchange
- >> prefixes?
-
- > I had a similar setup recently, but strictly speaking, it was
- > busy-transfer rather than hunting. It was on a 5ESS switch. The fact
- > that I wanted the busy-transfer was known at the time I placed the
- > order for the two lines, and the computer happened to select numbers
- > on two different prefixes. I would imagine that on a modern SPC
- > switch, the prefix difference would not matter.
-
- I have three numbers, with three different prefixes, in a rotary hunt
- group. The latter two were assigned at the time I ordered the hunt
- group. If it makes any difference, the switch is a 5ESS, and the
- territory is USWest.
-
-
- Stephen Diercouff, tfm Associates, Ltd., Bellingham WA voice: +1 206 733 5721
- Internet: sgd@tfm.com fax: +1 206 738 0630
- UUCP : uunet!nwnexus!tfm!sgd
- Snail : P.O. Box 5084/Bellingham WA 98227-5084
-
-