CLASSM Exam QuestionsBrowse all questions from this exam

CLASSM Exam - Question 138


An administrator troubleshoots call failure in a new deployment and finds that the SIP INVITE messages sent to the service provider contain a diversion header with the user's 4-cigit directory number. These 4-digit directory numbers range from 1000 to 9899. The service provider is rejecting the calls because it requires that the diversion header contain 10 digits. Which command on the Cisco Unified Border Element resolves this issue for all users?

Show Answer
Correct Answer: B

The command needed must modify the Diversion header in the SIP INVITE to add a prefix to the existing 4-digit directory number, converting it to a 10-digit number. Option B correctly uses a SIP header modification command that matches any digit sequence (represented by the ellipsis) and appends the necessary prefix to ensure the Diversion header conforms to the 10-digit requirement.

Discussion

4 comments
Sign in to comment
Testme1235
Oct 2, 2023

There is a Typo with this question! The three answers are the same.

johnathanm
Jul 13, 2024

A. voice class sip-profiles 105 request INVITE sip-header Diversion modify “<sip:1(...)@” “<sip:263411\1@” B. voice class sip-profiles 105 request INVITE sip-header Diversion modify “<sip:(...)@” “<sip:263411\1@” C. voice class sip-profiles 105 request INVITE sip-header Diversion add “<sip:(...)@” “<sip:263411\1@” D. voice class sip-profiles 105 request INVITE sip-header Diversion modify “<sip:1(...)@” “<sip:263411\2@” Its B.

FrankPic
Jul 26, 2024

why B? both A and B "generate" 9 digit diversion diversion-header sip-user...

Schmidlap
Jul 31, 2024

A is incorrect because it will only match extensions 1000 - 1999, not ALL extensions.

kljw5Option: A
Jan 24, 2025

Jonathanm has the actual correct ABCD answers and A. is the correct answer of those options voice class sip-profiles 105 request INVITE sip-header Diversion modify “<sip:1(...)@” “<sip:263411\1@”

john_doe_9999
Jun 28, 2024

Impossible to answer because of obvious typos