[cisco-voip] CDR Record for transferred call question

[Jason Aarons (US)]

...the next Ice Age will occur before a secondary line can be forwarded from a phone....

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Erick Bergquist
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:14 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi
Cc: cisco-voip mailinglist
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CDR Record for transferred call question

Yep, but it might be when I can forward secondary lines on a phone. :)

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> Eric, I think the whole list would benefit from the outcome of
> this.....could you post your findings?
>
> ---
> 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 Bergquist" <erickbee at gmail.com>
> To: "Wes Sisk" <wsisk at cisco.com>
> Cc: "cisco-voip mailinglist" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:03:14 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CDR Record for transferred call question
>
> Thanks Wes.
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Wes Sisk <wsisk at cisco.com> wrote:
>> A fine question for cm-cdr-sdp at cisco.com.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Wes
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 24, 2009 7:14:14 PM, Erick Bergquist
>> <erickbee at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

-----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:

This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
designated addressee(s) named above only.  If you are not the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful.  If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank you.