[VoiceOps] Tandem Dropping Calls

[Mike Hammett]

Calls through Bandwidth were successfuls, the last carriers (Frontier and VZW) don't have anything going on with my customer's TN. 


*sigh* Back to Frontier. I called Friday to escalate, but now the ticket in VFO is closed, so I'm sure that'll be wonderful to get them to act on now. 


It's the same tandem town\CO, but aren't LD tandems and local tandems different, or is that separation history and they just all get dropped on the same box now? 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 



----- Original Message -----

From: "Nick Olsen" <Nick at 141networks.com> 
To: "VoiceOps" <voiceops at voiceops.org>, "Mike Hammett" <voiceops at ics-il.net> 
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 3:30:48 PM 
Subject: Re: Tandem Dropping Calls 


Honestly the reply you got was more then I would've expected from any ILEC. This lack of care is par for the course for them. 


The way I read their reply however is "Trouble isn't in my department, go open a ticket elsewhere". And might be indicating that the reject is coming from somewhere further downstream. Such as they attempted to alert the line but it was busy. And they passed that back to you as a CC31 because... reasons. But this is a routing/translations guy, not an access guy. So he doesn't know. 


The ILEC's are so compartmentalized that the person that handled this ticket doesn't even know where you'd go from there other than it's not his/her problem. 


If I were you, I'd try sending the call to IQ or some other LD carrier and see if you get the same results. Atleast with the Frontier called TN's (2 of the 3), you know they're terminating back to that same tandem regardless of if it's from you or IQ, or whoever. Try the same call with different ANI's, Different results? Maybe the end user is subscribed to some service that is blocking the call..etc. 


Best of luck! 


From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of Mike Hammett via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> 
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 2:35 PM 
To: VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> 
Subject: [VoiceOps] Tandem Dropping Calls 


We have a new customer that has an increasing number of TNs they can't call. I've traced them all down to going through our local Frontier tandem. Calls from other phone numbers on our network are fine. Two of the numbers are with Frontier, just another ratecenter off of that tandem. The third we know of goes to VZW. 


I submit a ticket to Frontier with source number, destination number, and call date\time for the last set of problem calls, all within the previous 24 hours, out of our Metaswitch SAS. 


Frontier replies: 

Per Software Engineering/DBA: Did not find mention call in IRIS (SS7), did find at that time a call to 815-824-XXXX, not 815-824-YYYY. SS7 show that call at 14:51 came in on DNC tgn 1011, GN089085, OPC=005-092-136 and terminate to DeKalb switch. Verified 
incoming call in switch, switch not blocking terminating to line. **31 - Normal. Unspecified. This cause is used to report a normal event only when no other cause in the normal class applies**. Found no trouble in switch translations/routing. 


Status: Cleared Awaiting Cust Verification 


So we have a very different definition of "cleared". I call a problem cleared when it's resolved, not when the reason can't be found. 


So Frontier: 
1. Can't find one of the three calls I sent them. 
2. Doesn't chase the problem to the end of the line. 
3. Clarifies that the ISUP error I'm getting means they don't have a reason for it to be closed, so probably not a normal circumstance. 
4. Doesn't investigate why there's an unclassified release. 


How can I incentivize Frontier to actually figure this out? 



----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20221003/104ee5b2/attachment.htm>