[cisco-voip] CDR Record for transferred call question

[Erick Bergquist]

Well, back to the original topic, upon further investigation the CDR
info matches up for transfers on calls between phones (not voicemail
legs) but when the call leg is transferred to voicemail is when the
identifiers don't match as expected per the docs.

Just was wondering if anyone had ran into this behavior with the raw
data, not interested in the who's who in the reports.

Thanks

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Mark Holloway <mh at markholloway.com> wrote:
> Under normal circumstances, 1234 should be charged as the referring party.
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:18 AM
> To: Erick B.
> Cc: cisco-voip mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CDR Record for transferred call question
>
>
>
> transferred calls CDRs are a pain. and a possible toll fraud vehicle if not
> monitored/audited.
>
> take for example, extension 1234 calls an LD number then transfers to
> extension 4567.
>
> unless you track the transfer, the call is not logged properly. questions do
> arise, if you can track the transfer who do you charge? 1234 or 4567?
>
> i know this doesn't help, but i would hope that CallManager CDRs would keep
> the same callLegIdentfiers when necessary.
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erick B." <erickbee at gmail.com>
> To: "cisco-voip mailinglist" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:47:25 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: [cisco-voip] CDR Record for transferred call question
>
> Hi,
>
> I am working with ISI Infortel, and having issue with reporting on
> transferred calls. They are saying that in the CDR flat files
> generated that the following fields should match up across all the
> call legs involved in a transfer.
>
> origLegCallIdentifier and the destLegIdentifier fields should match
> across the call legs.
>
> In the CDR file, there are 3 legs part of the transferred call and the
> origLegCallIdentifer field matches on the 1st and 3rd leg but is
> different on the 2nd leg which is the phone that transferred the call
> to the final phone. This is on Call Manager version 5.1.1 and I've
> also compared against same sample call flow on version 6.1.2.1000-13
> and 7.0(2) and the CDR flat file records look the same. I've also
> tested with transfer softkey for the whole call flow and using hold
> and new call then transfer and the CDRs look the same so the method
> used doesn't effect the CDRs it appears.
>
> According to Cisco docs, it seems like it is working as it should as
> the examples in the docs match what I see and descriptions in the
> Cisco CDR PDF describe how these get generated, etc. But there is a
> section of the PDF that has the following for both of these fields,
> "If the leg of a call persists across several sub-calls, and
> consequently several CDRs (as during a call transfer), this value
> remains constant."  which I don't understand what it  means if these
> fields are different in the CDRs. I've opened a TAC Case and they
> confirmed everything is working as it should but the vendor is going
> back to this statement and states the fields should match up across
> all call legs so they can match up all the call legs for the report
> involved in the transferred call.
>
> The PDF is here,
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/service/6_0_1/car/carcdrdef.pdf
>
> Just wondering if anyone else has ran into this before or not.
>
> Thanks.
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip