<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>Eric, I think the whole list would benefit from the outcome of this.....could you post your findings?<br><br>---<br>Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.<br>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1<br>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)<br>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>"Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt<br><br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Erick Bergquist" <erickbee@gmail.com><br>To: "Wes Sisk" <wsisk@cisco.com><br>Cc: "cisco-voip mailinglist" <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net><br>Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:03:14 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CDR Record for transferred call question<br><br>Thanks Wes.<br><br>On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Wes Sisk <wsisk@cisco.com> wrote:<br>> A fine question for cm-cdr-sdp@cisco.com.<br>><br>> Regards,<br>> Wes<br>><br>> On Tuesday, February 24, 2009 7:14:14 PM, Erick Bergquist<br>> <erickbee@gmail.com> wrote:<br>><br>> Well, back to the original topic, upon further investigation the CDR<br>> info matches up for transfers on calls between phones (not voicemail<br>> legs) but when the call leg is transferred to voicemail is when the<br>> identifiers don't match as expected per the docs.<br>><br>> Just was wondering if anyone had ran into this behavior with the raw<br>> data, not interested in the who's who in the reports.<br>><br>> Thanks<br>><br>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Mark Holloway <mh@markholloway.com> wrote:<br>><br>><br>> Under normal circumstances, 1234 should be charged as the referring party.<br>><br>><br>><br>> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<br>> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi<br>> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:18 AM<br>> To: Erick B.<br>> Cc: cisco-voip mailinglist<br>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CDR Record for transferred call question<br>><br>><br>><br>> transferred calls CDRs are a pain. and a possible toll fraud vehicle if not<br>> monitored/audited.<br>><br>> take for example, extension 1234 calls an LD number then transfers to<br>> extension 4567.<br>><br>> unless you track the transfer, the call is not logged properly. questions do<br>> arise, if you can track the transfer who do you charge? 1234 or 4567?<br>><br>> i know this doesn't help, but i would hope that CallManager CDRs would keep<br>> the same callLegIdentfiers when necessary.<br>><br>> ---<br>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.<br>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1<br>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)<br>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt<br>><br>><br>> ----- Original Message -----<br>> From: "Erick B." <erickbee@gmail.com><br>> To: "cisco-voip mailinglist" <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net><br>> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:47:25 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>> Subject: [cisco-voip] CDR Record for transferred call question<br>><br>> Hi,<br>><br>> I am working with ISI Infortel, and having issue with reporting on<br>> transferred calls. They are saying that in the CDR flat files<br>> generated that the following fields should match up across all the<br>> call legs involved in a transfer.<br>><br>> origLegCallIdentifier and the destLegIdentifier fields should match<br>> across the call legs.<br>><br>> In the CDR file, there are 3 legs part of the transferred call and the<br>> origLegCallIdentifer field matches on the 1st and 3rd leg but is<br>> different on the 2nd leg which is the phone that transferred the call<br>> to the final phone. This is on Call Manager version 5.1.1 and I've<br>> also compared against same sample call flow on version 6.1.2.1000-13<br>> and 7.0(2) and the CDR flat file records look the same. I've also<br>> tested with transfer softkey for the whole call flow and using hold<br>> and new call then transfer and the CDRs look the same so the method<br>> used doesn't effect the CDRs it appears.<br>><br>> According to Cisco docs, it seems like it is working as it should as<br>> the examples in the docs match what I see and descriptions in the<br>> Cisco CDR PDF describe how these get generated, etc. But there is a<br>> section of the PDF that has the following for both of these fields,<br>> "If the leg of a call persists across several sub-calls, and<br>> consequently several CDRs (as during a call transfer), this value<br>> remains constant." which I don't understand what it means if these<br>> fields are different in the CDRs. I've opened a TAC Case and they<br>> confirmed everything is working as it should but the vendor is going<br>> back to this statement and states the fields should match up across<br>> all call legs so they can match up all the call legs for the report<br>> involved in the transferred call.<br>><br>> The PDF is here,<br>><br>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/service/6_0_1/car/carcdrdef.pdf<br>><br>> Just wondering if anyone else has ran into this before or not.<br>><br>> Thanks.<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> cisco-voip mailing list<br>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> cisco-voip mailing list<br>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>><br>><br>_______________________________________________<br>cisco-voip mailing list<br>cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br></div></body></html>