[cisco-voip] Caller ID.
Marc Hering
mhering at reval.com
Wed Mar 2 11:07:10 EST 2005
Not sure if this is relavent..but even though the call coming in is
tagged as nationa....On the calling party number I see Plan:Unknown,
Type:Unknown
Could this be affecting??
Just a thought
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Voll, Scott
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:01 AM
To: Mark R. Lindsey; John Osmon
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Caller ID.
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
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
More information about the cisco-voip
mailing list