[cisco-voip] AT&T/Avaya Definity G3 connection
Charles Goldsmith
wokka at justfamily.org
Tue Sep 28 16:49:59 EDT 2010
Thanks Tim, however, this is an older Definity G3, running v9 software, but
that doesn't seem to affect things, as my Avaya support tells me that it
wouldn't matter if I updated or not.
One thing I neglected in my info was that I'm MGCP on CM 8.0.2
One suggestion I found while googling was to set up the PRI as QSIG between
the two, I'll try that tonight and see what happens.
Thanks
Charles
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Estes, Timothy
<TimothyEstes at sfngroup.com>wrote:
> I have some Cisco GWs to Avaya PRIs and calling name does work on calls
> from the Avaya to Cisco. I have pasted the Cisco and Avaya configs below.
>
> UCM 8.0.3 with 3845 using H.323
>
>
>
> Avaya S8500 - R013x.00.1.346.0
>
>
>
>
>
> On the Cisco 3845 GW
>
>
>
> controller T1 0/1/0
>
> framing esf
>
> clock source internal
>
> linecode b8zs
>
> pri-group timeslots 1-24
>
> description Cable to Avaya S8500
>
>
>
> interface Serial0/1/0:23
>
> description PRI to Avaya S8500
>
> no ip address
>
> encapsulation hdlc
>
> no logging event link-status
>
> isdn switch-type primary-ni
>
> isdn protocol-emulate network
>
> isdn incoming-voice voice
>
> isdn outgoing display-ie
>
> no cdp enable
>
>
>
> dial-peer voice 7207 pots
>
> description AvayaS8500
>
> destination-pattern 016.T
>
> direct-inward-dial
>
> port 0/1/0:23
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On the Avaya trunk config -
>
>
>
> TRUNK GROUP
>
>
>
> Group Number: 17 Group Type: isdn CDR Reports: y
>
> Group Name: Cisco to VoIP COR: 95 TN: 1 TAC:
> 1517
>
> Direction: two-way Outgoing Display? n Carrier Medium:
> PRI/BRI
>
> Dial Access? n Busy Threshold: 23 Night Service:
>
> Queue Length: 0
>
> Service Type: public-ntwrk Auth Code? n TestCall ITC:
> rest
>
> Far End Test Line No:
>
> TestCall BCC: 4
>
> TRUNK PARAMETERS
>
> Codeset to Send Display: 6 Codeset to Send National IEs: 6
>
> Max Message Size to Send: 260 Charge Advice: none
>
> Supplementary Service Protocol: a Digit Handling (in/out):
> enbloc/enbloc
>
>
>
> Trunk Hunt: cyclical
>
> Digital Loss Group: 13
>
> Incoming Calling Number - Delete: Insert: Format:
> pub-unk
>
> Bit Rate: 1200 Synchronization: async Duplex: full
>
> Disconnect Supervision - In? y Out? n
>
> Answer Supervision Timeout: 0
>
>
>
>
>
> TRUNK FEATURES
>
> ACA Assignment? n Measured: none Wideband
> Support? n
>
> Maintenance
> Tests? y
>
> Data Restriction? n NCA-TSC Trunk
> Member:
>
> Send Name: y Send Calling
> Number: y
>
> Used for DCS? n
>
> Suppress # Outpulsing? n Format: unk-pvt
>
> Outgoing Channel ID Encoding: preferred UUI IE Treatment:
> service-provider
>
>
>
> Replace Restricted
> Numbers? n
>
> Replace Unavailable
> Numbers? n
>
> Send Connected
> Number: y
>
> Network Call Redirection: none Hold/Unhold
> Notifications? n
>
> Send UUI IE? y Modify Tandem Calling
> Number? n
>
> Send UCID? y
>
> Send Codeset 6/7 LAI IE? y Ds1 Echo Cancellation? n
>
>
>
> US NI Delayed Calling Name
> Update? y
>
>
>
> Network (Japan) Needs Connect Before
> Disconnect? n
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hope this helps -
>
>
>
> Timothy Estes
>
> Network Engineer
>
> SFN Group
>
> Ft. Lauderdale FL
>
> timothyestes at sfngroup.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Charles Goldsmith
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 28, 2010 11:56 AM
> *To:* voip puck
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] AT&T/Avaya Definity G3 connection
>
>
>
> We have a legacy Definity G3 system that I have a pair of PRI's connected
> to, everything works except properly caller-id name info. I know the
> Definity will send it, we used to have a Mitel 3300 connected to it that
> would receive it just fine.
>
>
>
> I get number only on the Cisco phones, and interesting enough, with a
> supervised transfer from the Definity attendant console,
> the initial connection shows up as Unknown Caller, which is annoying for our
> operators.
>
>
>
> Definity support told me that the issue was an incompatibility of IE
> between the two systems.
>
>
>
> Has anyone else come across this, and did you find a work around or a way
> to solve it? We'll hopefully replace the Definity with Cisco next year, but
> that isn't set in stone and I'd like to solve this problem.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Charles
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20100928/18838c67/attachment.html>
More information about the cisco-voip
mailing list