[cisco-voip] Caller ID.

[Voll, Scott]

OK. I'm sending ISDN National.  What's weird is that from by VoIP
network I get unavailable but from our PBX behind the VoIP network (PSTN
--VGW--PBX), it works?  Any ideas?  Below is the Debug ISDN Q931.
Numbers changed to protect the innocent.

Scott

Mar  2 15:50:41.558: ISDN Se3/1:23 Q931: TX -> SETUP pd = 8  callref =
0x0002
        Bearer Capability i = 0x8090A2
                Standard = CCITT
                Transer Capability = Speech
                Transfer Mode = Circuit
                Transfer Rate = 64 kbit/s
        Channel ID i = 0xA98397
                Exclusive, Channel 23
        Display i = 'Test'
        Calling Party Number i = 0x0083, '503xxx5330' *******PBX
number*****
                Plan:Unknown, Type:Unknown
        Called Party Number i = 0xA1, '503xxx0027' *** Qwest Cell
Phone***
                Plan:ISDN, Type:National
0x1E88
        Bearer Capability i = 0x8090A2
                Standard = CCITT
                Transer Capability = Speech
                Transfer Mode = Circuit
                Transfer Rate = 64 kbit/s
        Channel ID i = 0xA98397
                Exclusive, Channel 23
        Display i = 'Scott Voll'
        Calling Party Number i = 0x0081, '503xxx4571' **** IP Phone****
                Plan:Unknown, Type:Unknown
        Called Party Number i = 0xA1, '503xxx0027' ******Qwest Cell
Phone***
                Plan:ISDN, Type:National
Mar  2 15:52:32.436: ISDN Se3/0:23 Q931: RX <- CALL_PROC pd = 8  callref
= 



-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark R. Lindsey
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 6:22 AM
To: John Osmon
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Caller ID.


On Mar 2, 2005, at 1:03 AM, John Osmon wrote:
> It turns out that we'd been sending calls without tagging them
> as 'national'.  A Verizon tech sent me an SS7 trace that showed
> the "Nature of Address Indicator" was set to 'spare' and said that
> their Lucent gear couldn't deal with that -- even though the proper
> phone number for the caller-id info was available...

"Spare" means that you were sending the number without fully specifying
what format the number was encoded in -- i.e., you sent a code for NAI
that didn't have a defined meaning. It'd be something like sending an IP
packet without specifying a defined value in the 8-bit protocol part of
the header, then just hoping the receiving equipment figure out that you
meant TCP.

Sure, they could have made a guess that you were sending the national 
number
party, and kept going -- but that's asking a lot. In a sense, they did 
just keep
going -- they could have just rejected the call altogether.

> was I in the wrong for not tagging the calls?  If so,
> why did everyone else (apparently) assume it was a 'national' number?

You were sending signaling that was malformed. It's possible that some 
of
the other equipment was reading only the numbering plan (NP), and wasn't
even using the NAI part to make the translations/routing decision. The 
Lucent
gear was probably running in a "safer" mode where it validated every 
field.

It may have nothing to do with any telco's policy, and more to do with 
the
programming standards of the guy that wrote that chunk of the caller-ID 
handling
code for Lucent.

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip