[cisco-voip] DTMF interworking on CUBE - asymmetric payloads

Thu Sep 29 22:42:48 EDT 2016

So, what dtmf setup did you go with then, Alan?

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Alan Libbee <alan.libbee at umuc.edu> wrote:

> I have run in to the very same issue. It seems that it works fine on a
> direct inbound and outbound call, but if an incoming call comes in and is
> transferred to a uccx application, the first DTMF digit fails after the
> transfer. We took   debugs and tac confirmed the same, it is not a
> supported configuration.
>
> On Sep 29, 2016 3:59 PM, "Brian Meade" <bmeade90 at vt.edu> wrote:
>
>> Bringing up this old thread as I've been doing RTP-NTE to SIP-KPML on a
>> lot of setups but finally ran into an issue with intermittently digits not
>> being converted from KPML to RTP-NTE.  The debugs showed the DTMF-relay
>> conversion being done and the digits being sent through RTP-NTE but packet
>> capture shows some digits not making it onto the wire.
>>
>> TAC shut it down and said this is one of the caveats and why this isn't
>> fully supported.
>>
>> So just FYI for everyone on why it's apparently officially not supported
>> without a transcoder.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Justin Steinberg <jsteinberg at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> interesting - i wonder why that is not supported when it works.  doc
>>> error or some legit technical issue ?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Anthony Holloway <
>>> avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do it to, but did you know that RTP-NTE to SIP-KPML is not supported
>>>> on CUBE as of yet?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/voice/cube/
>>>> configuration/cube-book/dtmf-relay.html#concept_264617919921
>>>> 874995299551391601561__table_16E37E2F33CE4E0B836D2E5A809E7252
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Justin Steinberg <jsteinberg at gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> yes, CUBE can do RFC2833/NTP to a Telco and SIP-KPML to CUCM.   I do
>>>>> this for calls that terminate on CCX IVR since CCX does not support
>>>>> RFC2833.   With only rtp-nte on the dialpeer from CUBE to CUCM, CUCM will
>>>>> invoke a MTP.   Adding sip-kpml to the dial-peer will allow RTP directly
>>>>> from CUBE to CCX without any MTP in the middle.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Ed Leatherman <ealeatherman at gmail.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Daniel, that helps a lot in understanding the feature. I'm
>>>>>> curious if CUBE will also translate digits to KPML in this case if the leg
>>>>>> to CUCM has that negotiated. Wish I had a lab built out for this :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Daniel Pagan <dpagan at fidelus.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I specifically worked with the dynamic payload option for a few
>>>>>>> cases that came my way. Based on my findings, when a dynamic payload type
>>>>>>> (such as 100/101/etc.) is received by CUBE, it will check if the next-hop
>>>>>>> dial-peer has the asymmetric payload feature enabled and, if it is, will
>>>>>>> pass the received payload type through to the next call-leg. Take a look at
>>>>>>> my screen shot below. This was taken from some old notes where AT&T was the
>>>>>>> customer’s carrier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The call flow above shows two call-legs, and *the arrows represent
>>>>>>> an offer/answer exchange*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With asymmetric payload enabled on both call legs, the 100 offer
>>>>>>> from ATT is passed to CUCM despite 101 being the default PT for NTE. In the
>>>>>>> SDP answer from CUCM, we’re getting PT 101 -- since asymmetry is enabled on
>>>>>>> the DP to ATT in this call flow, we pass the 101 through to ATT despite
>>>>>>> having received PT 100.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This results in asymmetry on our negotiated PT for each call-leg.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Let’s change it up a bit… A second example.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If asymmetry was disabled on the dial-peer to CUCM but enabled to
>>>>>>> ATT, we would receive 100 PT from ATT, send 101 to CUCM, receive 101 from
>>>>>>> CUCM, and send 101 to ATT. The resulting PTs would be symmetrical between
>>>>>>> CUBE and CUCM, but asymmetrical between CUBE and ATT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See screenshot below for a third example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This example shows asymmetric payload disabled on both call-legs
>>>>>>> using the same call flow. CUBE receives PT of 100 from ATT -- the outbound
>>>>>>> dialpeer has asymmetry disabled, so it transmits the PT specified for that
>>>>>>> dial-peer (default 101 or any hardcoded dynamic PT) to CUCM. We then
>>>>>>> receive 101 from CUCM and, since our inbound dial-peer has asymmetry
>>>>>>> disabled, CUBE sends 100 to match the original PT it received. Asymmetry is
>>>>>>> disabled so CUBE is not passing the received dynamic PT through to the
>>>>>>> next-hop dial-peer - we have symmetry on both call legs for our NTE PT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that CUBE has no issues receiving one dynamic PT for NTE and
>>>>>>> sending another (ex: receiving PT 100 and transmitting 101 for RTP-NTE) on
>>>>>>> the same call leg.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hope this helps
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Dan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------end attach---------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Ed Leatherman
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, July 18, 2016 3:10 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* Cisco VOIP <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>>>>>>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] DTMF interworking on CUBE - asymmetric
>>>>>>> payloads
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm trying to get my head wrapped around some DTMF interworking
>>>>>>>  features...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have this setup:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UCM ------ CUBE ------- 3rd party system
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For both call legs through CUBE I'm advertising kpml and rtp-nte for
>>>>>>> dtmf-relay
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 3rd party sometimes sends me rtp payload type 101 for nte's, and
>>>>>>> no kpml, and things work (as a bonus I observed CUBE correctly interworking
>>>>>>> the nte's from the pbx into KPML, so uccx didn't break).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sometimes they send type 98 and no kpml, and things don't work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm trying to understand what is happening and what feature should
>>>>>>> fix it (without breaking other things)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assumption:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "dtmf-relay rtp-nte kpml" is telling CUBE to offer/accept rtp type
>>>>>>> 101 only for nte. I observe that CUBE negotiates KPML only for the
>>>>>>> associated call leg back to UCM and doesn't bother with rtp-nte, so its
>>>>>>> just like any other codec that CUBE doesn't care about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So.. if third party system ONLY sent me dtmf-relay with payload type
>>>>>>> 98, could I just set the rtp payload type for this to 98 on the inbound
>>>>>>> dial peer? would CUBE then correctly switch these up to 101 headed back to
>>>>>>> UCM?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can I (or can I at all) make this work in my particular case
>>>>>>> were I could receive both?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see "asymmetric payload dtmf" thrown about as a possible solution,
>>>>>>> but I'm having trouble understanding what it actually does. It sounds like
>>>>>>> it passes these payload types through CUBE, so UCM could be getting rtp
>>>>>>> payload type 98 - it knows what to do with it? It seems like then CUBE
>>>>>>> wouldn't be able to translate things to KPML this way...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm reading http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/voi
>>>>>>> ce/cube/configuration/cube-book/voi-dymc-payld-dtmf.html but I
>>>>>>> guess I'm just not drinking enough coffee today (or too much) and I'm not
>>>>>>> getting what exactly this command does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone know how that asymmeteric command works?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed Leatherman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ed Leatherman
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20160929/3f9a4ef1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2755 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20160929/3f9a4ef1/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8218 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20160929/3f9a4ef1/attachment-0001.png>