[cisco-voip] RDNIS and Original Called Number IE

[Ted Nugent]

so you're not seeing any of that coming across on port status monitor?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Eric Pedersen
<PedersenE at bennettjones.com>wrote:

>  The redirect number is making it to the central site, but CUCM isn't
> passing it along to Unity Connection.****
>
> ** **
>
> i.e: (I changed the actual phone numbers)****
>
> 991449: Jun 21 11:47:56.505 MDT: ISDN Se0/0/0:23 Q931: RX <- SETUP pd = 8
> callref = 0x0141 ****
>
>                 Bearer Capability i = 0x8090A2 ****
>
>                                 Standard = CCITT ****
>
>                                 Transfer Capability = Speech  ****
>
>                                 Transfer Mode = Circuit ****
>
>                                 Transfer Rate = 64 kbit/s ****
>
>                 Channel ID i = 0xA9838F ****
>
>                                 Exclusive, Channel 15 ****
>
>                 Display i = 0xB1, 'Pedersen, Eric' ****
>
>                 Calling Party Number i = 0x2183, '7805551212'  (original
> calling number)****
>
>                                 Plan:ISDN, Type:National ****
>
>                 Called Party Number i = 0xA1, '4035551212' (VM pilot) ****
>
>                                 Plan:ISDN, Type:National ****
>
>                 Original Called Number i = 0x00000281, '7805551213'  (VM
> mailbox number)****
>
>                                 Plan:Unknown, Type:Unknown****
>
> ** **
>
> When I forward the same call to a SIP gateway, the GW does this:****
>
> 067285: Jun 20 20:46:02.990 MDT: ISDN Se0/0/0:23 Q931:
> extract_redirect_orig_called_ie: IE type orig called num 7805551213reason 15 cnt 0 plan 0 type 0 pres 0
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> And the SIP invite from the GW to CUCM has:****
>
> Diversion: <sip:7805551213 at 10.16.64.1
> >;privacy=off;reason=unconditional;screen=no****
>
> ** **
>
> And then it gets to the correct mailbox. So it seems to me that the issue
> is with CUCM and the MGCP GW.  I've been considering changing the central
> GW to SIP anyway, so maybe this is a reason to do it.****
>
> ** **
>
> Eric****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Ted Nugent [mailto:tednugent73 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 21 June 2012 11:27 AM
>
> *To:* Eric Pedersen
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] RDNIS and Original Called Number IE****
>
>  ** **
>
> In my experience with this all providers from the remote site to the Unity
> pilot  location ALL need to support RDNIS, which is not always feasible.**
> **
>
> It's been a while but I would look into sending the digits inband****
>
>  ****
>
>  dial-peer voice 10 pots
>  destination-pattern 19195551212
>  port 0/0/0:23
>  forward-digits extra inband****
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Eric Pedersen <
> PedersenE at bennettjones.com> wrote:****
>
> We're running CUCM 8.6(2).21900-5.****
>
>  ****
>
> When one of our remote sites goes into SRST, I would like to be able to
> have voicemail survivability by forwarding no-answer/busy to the Unity
> pilot number at our central site.  We're using DMS-100 PRIs at both
> locations and I can see in the ISDN debugs that the redirect number is
> getting correctly passed by the telco in the ISDN Setup Original Called
> Number IE.  CUCM however is not passing on the Original Called Number IE
> contents to Unity Connection.  I have "Redirecting Number IE Delivery –
> Inbound" checked on the GW config, but that's not the IE that's being used
> in the Setup; I assume that's because it's a DMS-100 PRI.****
>
>  ****
>
> The remote GW is SIP so as an experiment I tried forwarding a call there.
> This GW correctly takes the contents of the Original Called Number IE and
> puts it in the Diversion Header which CUCM uses as the RDNIS so it looks
> like I have a problem with my central MGCP GW.****
>
>  ****
>
> Am I missing something in my configuration, or does CUCM not support the
> Original Called Number IE?****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Eric****
>
> The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged****
>
> subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact****
>
> the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms of communication,****
>
> e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized****
>
> parties. If you do not wish us to communicate with you by e-mail, please****
>
> notify us at your earliest convenience. In the absence of such****
>
> notification, your consent is assumed. Should you choose to allow us to****
>
> communicate by e-mail, we will not take any additional security measures****
>
> (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip****
>
> ** **
>
> The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged
> subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact
> the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms of communication,
> e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized
> parties. If you do not wish us to communicate with you by e-mail, please
> notify us at your earliest convenience. In the absence of such
> notification, your consent is assumed. Should you choose to allow us to
> communicate by e-mail, we will not take any additional security measures
> (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20120621/2a0d4154/attachment.html>