[cisco-voip] CDR Record for transferred call question

Tue Feb 24 22:29:41 EST 2009

Ok, well I emailed the address Wes provided. Thanks again.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Jason Aarons (US)
<jason.aarons at us.didata.com> wrote:
> ...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.
>