[cisco-voip] Excluding extensions from CDR reporting

[Hames, Joel]

Thanks for the clarification and I apologize for the vagueness of the
example.  We are seeing both calls to our voicemail extension (2000) and
to the MWI extensions (2090 and 2091).  We recently disabled reporting
for zero duration calls, but your point is well taken regarding 911
hangups.  I'll check with our implementer to see if our Emergency
Responder installation will help offset this loss of detail.  As for the
voicemail extension itself (2000) that is logging all calls transferred
to VM, I'll work with RSI again to see what they can do to help filter
out this information for reporting.

Joel Hames
Senior Director, Information Technology
Tamalpais Union High School District
jhames at tamdistrict.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Sisk [mailto:wsisk at cisco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:32 AM
To: Hames, Joel
Cc: Cisco VoIP
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Excluding extensions from CDR reporting

The verbiage provided is vague but i'm going to assume that CDR's for 
MWI calls are the crux of the issue.  Those have been an issue before 
and are certainly numerous enough to skew reporting.

The way CM is implemented Voicemail and the associated MWI transactions 
are calls.  You can set CM service parameter "CDR log calls with zero 
duration" to false so that CM does not record CDR for MWI.  However, you

risk losing CDR for other critical calls such as misdials/hangups to 911

where the caller hangs up before 911 service answers.  Most 911 
districts consider these prank calls with a quota and begin charging.

Otherwise, no, there is no way to filter these calls from CDR. The 
system dumps out CDR's of all calls.  Parsing, filtering, and 
correlating are the job of the "Call Accounting and Reporting" package.

Just as Cisco generates the CDR flat files, RSI has to parse and import 
every CDR flat file.  They have equal opportunity to filter these 
requests.  As a bonus, RSI can do it without contending for 
CPU/Memory/DiskIO that would otherwise be used for processing your 
actual calls.  It's a rather classic example of production vs.
reporting.

/Wes

Hames, Joel wrote:
> We have a new CCM5.1 installation, so I may ask a few basic questions
as
> we work through our first deployment.  At the moment, we have
> implemented RSI's Call Accounting system and have noticed that our
> voicemail extension skews all of our reports significantly.  RSI
claims
> that this is a Cisco configuration issue and that calls to that
> extension should not be passed to the call accounting system.  Our
> installer claims that there is no way to filter out reporting to
certain
> extensions.
>
> Does anyone have experience with this? While we can certainly ignore
the
> reports of calls inbound and outbound to that extension, I'd like to
> clean this up as much as possible.  The graphs of call lengths and
call
> costs would be much more meaningful without extraneous information
like
> this.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Joel Hames
> Senior Director, Information Technology
> Tamalpais Union High School District
> jhames at tamdistrict.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>