[cisco-voip] Caller ID.

[Voll, Scott]

MGCP

Topo looks like this

PSTN -- 3 pri's --- VGW -- 3 pri's -- PBX
		|
		CM 3.3.4

So I need to debug MGCP?

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark R. Lindsey [mailto:lindsey at e-c-group.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:02 AM
To: Voll, Scott
Cc: John Osmon; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Caller ID.

Is your VoIP SIP?

Are you saying that the trunk-side interface of the PBX is VoIP?

In either case, you need to enable debugging of the VoIP signaling (SIP 
or whatever) to see how, if at all, the inbound caller ID is being 
sent.


On Mar 2, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Voll, Scott wrote:

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20050302/657f81c3/attachment.html