|
Home > Archive > Voice over IP Cisco > February 2006 > route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
|
|
|
| Here is my dilemma.
All the phones in my callmanager 4.0 setup do not have "external phone
number mask" setup. Instead, I have put the number mask in to the
translation pattern for outbound calling. For example.
My extension is 4990
I dial a call that matches the 8.@ route pattern, and the call gets
routed out the PRI Gateway, and the pattern applies the "Calling Party
Transform Mask" of 323860XXXX
This results in the caller-id showing up as 323-860-4990. Perfect.
Now here are the problems with this solution. If I enable callforwarding
on my phone (sending them to my cellphone), the caller-id gets messed
up. Here is why:
Let's say my friend at 310-833-5625 calls me on my cisco phone. The call
hits the phone, but there is a CFwdAll set.
The call forwards to 813239438833 (my cell with the outgoing prefix of
8).
When the call forwards, it runs through the route pattern 8.@
The call exits the PRI Gateway, and the Calling Party Transform Mask
applied is 323860XXXX.
The call reaches my cellphone, and the caller-id says 323-860-5625
So, only the last 4 digits are from the original callers phone number,
and the rest are from the route pattern's transform mask.
Needless to say, this is a problem.
One solution I have found is to eliminate the "Calling Party Transform
Mask" from all route patterns. Then, I add an "External Phone Number
Mask" to each and every line on my phone. This way, when I call out from
my phone, the caller-id is correct, and calls forwarded through my phone
retain their caller-id when they go through the route pattern. This is a
serious maintenance nightmare, as I would have number mask's all over
the place. However, the upside of this route, is that the 2 people in
the office who want caller-id blocked on their outbound calls can do
so...(anyone know an easier way?)
I know other people have had to deal with this, but I cannot find the
answer in my archives of this mailing list.
Have you ever dealt with this, and do you have a solution that will
allow me to keep the number masks in the route pattern?
| |
| Ryan Ratliff 2006-02-08, 5:45 pm |
| BAT?
It can easily modify your external calling party number.
-Ryan
On Feb 8, 2006, at 3:40 PM, IT wrote:
Here is my dilemma.
All the phones in my callmanager 4.0 setup do not have "external phone
number mask" setup. Instead, I have put the number mask in to the
translation pattern for outbound calling. For example.
My extension is 4990
I dial a call that matches the 8.@ route pattern, and the call gets
routed out the PRI Gateway, and the pattern applies the "Calling Party
Transform Mask" of 323860XXXX
This results in the caller-id showing up as 323-860-4990. Perfect.
Now here are the problems with this solution. If I enable callforwarding
on my phone (sending them to my cellphone), the caller-id gets messed
up. Here is why:
Let's say my friend at 310-833-5625 calls me on my cisco phone. The call
hits the phone, but there is a CFwdAll set.
The call forwards to 813239438833 (my cell with the outgoing prefix of
8).
When the call forwards, it runs through the route pattern 8.@
The call exits the PRI Gateway, and the Calling Party Transform Mask
applied is 323860XXXX.
The call reaches my cellphone, and the caller-id says 323-860-5625
So, only the last 4 digits are from the original callers phone number,
and the rest are from the route pattern's transform mask.
Needless to say, this is a problem.
One solution I have found is to eliminate the "Calling Party Transform
Mask" from all route patterns. Then, I add an "External Phone Number
Mask" to each and every line on my phone. This way, when I call out from
my phone, the caller-id is correct, and calls forwarded through my phone
retain their caller-id when they go through the route pattern. This is a
serious maintenance nightmare, as I would have number mask's all over
the place. However, the upside of this route, is that the 2 people in
the office who want caller-id blocked on their outbound calls can do
so...(anyone know an easier way?)
I know other people have had to deal with this, but I cannot find the
answer in my archives of this mailing list.
Have you ever dealt with this, and do you have a solution that will
allow me to keep the number masks in the route pattern?
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Lelio Fulgenzi 2006-02-08, 5:45 pm |
| So you're saying that if I forward my phone offcampus to a phone that has call display, what I see on the other side depends on whether I use the phones external calling mask or the route pattern mask? I don't use wildcards, I simply populate the field with our main number. If I have the external mask set per phone, I will see the original caller's number, but if I use the mask on the RP I will see my main number?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more jitter than an
IP phone on a long haul 10base2 connection" LFJ
----- Original Message -----
From: IT
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:40 PM
Subject: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
Here is my dilemma.
All the phones in my callmanager 4.0 setup do not have "external phone
number mask" setup. Instead, I have put the number mask in to the
translation pattern for outbound calling. For example.
My extension is 4990
I dial a call that matches the 8.@ route pattern, and the call gets
routed out the PRI Gateway, and the pattern applies the "Calling Party
Transform Mask" of 323860XXXX
This results in the caller-id showing up as 323-860-4990. Perfect.
Now here are the problems with this solution. If I enable callforwarding
on my phone (sending them to my cellphone), the caller-id gets messed
up. Here is why:
Let's say my friend at 310-833-5625 calls me on my cisco phone. The call
hits the phone, but there is a CFwdAll set.
The call forwards to 813239438833 (my cell with the outgoing prefix of
8).
When the call forwards, it runs through the route pattern 8.@
The call exits the PRI Gateway, and the Calling Party Transform Mask
applied is 323860XXXX.
The call reaches my cellphone, and the caller-id says 323-860-5625
So, only the last 4 digits are from the original callers phone number,
and the rest are from the route pattern's transform mask.
Needless to say, this is a problem.
One solution I have found is to eliminate the "Calling Party Transform
Mask" from all route patterns. Then, I add an "External Phone Number
Mask" to each and every line on my phone. This way, when I call out from
my phone, the caller-id is correct, and calls forwarded through my phone
retain their caller-id when they go through the route pattern. This is a
serious maintenance nightmare, as I would have number mask's all over
the place. However, the upside of this route, is that the 2 people in
the office who want caller-id blocked on their outbound calls can do
so...(anyone know an easier way?)
I know other people have had to deal with this, but I cannot find the
answer in my archives of this mailing list.
Have you ever dealt with this, and do you have a solution that will
allow me to keep the number masks in the route pattern?
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Ryan Ratliff 2006-02-08, 5:45 pm |
| The calling party selection configured on the gateway will play a
role here, but I can see where a calling party modification on the
route pattern would change it.
-Ryan
On Feb 8, 2006, at 3:50 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:
So you're saying that if I forward my phone offcampus to a phone that
has call display, what I see on the other side depends on whether I
use the phones external calling mask or the route pattern mask? I
don't use wildcards, I simply populate the field with our main
number. If I have the external mask set per phone, I will see the
original caller's number, but if I use the mask on the RP I will see
my main number?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more
jitter than an
IP phone on a long haul 10base2
connection" LFJ
----- Original Message -----
From: IT
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:40 PM
Subject: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
Here is my dilemma.
All the phones in my callmanager 4.0 setup do not have "external phone
number mask" setup. Instead, I have put the number mask in to the
translation pattern for outbound calling. For example.
My extension is 4990
I dial a call that matches the 8.@ route pattern, and the call gets
routed out the PRI Gateway, and the pattern applies the "Calling Party
Transform Mask" of 323860XXXX
This results in the caller-id showing up as 323-860-4990. Perfect.
Now here are the problems with this solution. If I enable callforwarding
on my phone (sending them to my cellphone), the caller-id gets messed
up. Here is why:
Let's say my friend at 310-833-5625 calls me on my cisco phone. The call
hits the phone, but there is a CFwdAll set.
The call forwards to 813239438833 (my cell with the outgoing prefix of
8).
When the call forwards, it runs through the route pattern 8.@
The call exits the PRI Gateway, and the Calling Party Transform Mask
applied is 323860XXXX.
The call reaches my cellphone, and the caller-id says 323-860-5625
So, only the last 4 digits are from the original callers phone number,
and the rest are from the route pattern's transform mask.
Needless to say, this is a problem.
One solution I have found is to eliminate the "Calling Party Transform
Mask" from all route patterns. Then, I add an "External Phone Number
Mask" to each and every line on my phone. This way, when I call out from
my phone, the caller-id is correct, and calls forwarded through my phone
retain their caller-id when they go through the route pattern. This is a
serious maintenance nightmare, as I would have number mask's all over
the place. However, the upside of this route, is that the 2 people in
the office who want caller-id blocked on their outbound calls can do
so...(anyone know an easier way?)
I know other people have had to deal with this, but I cannot find the
answer in my archives of this mailing list.
Have you ever dealt with this, and do you have a solution that will
allow me to keep the number masks in the route pattern?
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Greg Ayoub 2006-02-08, 5:45 pm |
| ....One solution I have found is to eliminate the "Calling Party Transform
Mask" from all route patterns. Then, I add an "External Phone Number
Mask" to each and every line on my phone. This way, when I call out from
my phone, the caller-id is correct, and calls forwarded through my phone
retain their caller-id when they go through the route pattern. This is a
serious maintenance nightmare...
That was our solution as well. If you find a better one, let us know!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Ratliff" <rratliff@cisco.com>
To: "IT" <it@cimgroup.com>
Cc: <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
BAT?
It can easily modify your external calling party number.
-Ryan
On Feb 8, 2006, at 3:40 PM, IT wrote:
Here is my dilemma.
All the phones in my callmanager 4.0 setup do not have "external phone
number mask" setup. Instead, I have put the number mask in to the
translation pattern for outbound calling. For example.
My extension is 4990
I dial a call that matches the 8.@ route pattern, and the call gets
routed out the PRI Gateway, and the pattern applies the "Calling Party
Transform Mask" of 323860XXXX
This results in the caller-id showing up as 323-860-4990. Perfect.
Now here are the problems with this solution. If I enable callforwarding
on my phone (sending them to my cellphone), the caller-id gets messed
up. Here is why:
Let's say my friend at 310-833-5625 calls me on my cisco phone. The call
hits the phone, but there is a CFwdAll set.
The call forwards to 813239438833 (my cell with the outgoing prefix of
8).
When the call forwards, it runs through the route pattern 8.@
The call exits the PRI Gateway, and the Calling Party Transform Mask
applied is 323860XXXX.
The call reaches my cellphone, and the caller-id says 323-860-5625
So, only the last 4 digits are from the original callers phone number,
and the rest are from the route pattern's transform mask.
Needless to say, this is a problem.
One solution I have found is to eliminate the "Calling Party Transform
Mask" from all route patterns. Then, I add an "External Phone Number
Mask" to each and every line on my phone. This way, when I call out from
my phone, the caller-id is correct, and calls forwarded through my phone
retain their caller-id when they go through the route pattern. This is a
serious maintenance nightmare, as I would have number mask's all over
the place. However, the upside of this route, is that the 2 people in
the office who want caller-id blocked on their outbound calls can do
so...(anyone know an easier way?)
I know other people have had to deal with this, but I cannot find the
answer in my archives of this mailing list.
Have you ever dealt with this, and do you have a solution that will
allow me to keep the number masks in the route pattern?
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Justin Steinberg 2006-02-08, 5:45 pm |
| A really easy fix for this problem is to call your Telco and request a
'screening range'.
They can populate a screening range with all the DIDs on your PRI.
Then whenever an outbound call is placed from your site the Telco
checks the ANI that CallManager is sending. If the ANI is a valid DID
then it is passed without modification. If the ANI is something
outside of your DID range then the telco overwrites your ANI with your
main phone number.
All the major telco's I've dealt with support the screening range
concept in one way or the other.
Of course, a side effect of this problem is you can no longer prank
your friends - and other legitimate things such as wanting to send out
a toll-free number as your ANI.
Justin
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:50:09 -0500
> From: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
> To: "IT" <it@cimgroup.com>, <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID: <00c701c62cf1$41208ab0$30196883@cfs.uoguelph.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> So you're saying that if I forward my phone offcampus to a phone that has call display, what I see on the other side depends on whether I use the phones external calling mask or the route pattern mask? I don't use wildcards, I simply populate the field
with our main number. If I have the external mask set per phone, I will see the original caller's number, but if I use the mask on the RP I will see my main number?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more jitter than an
> IP phone on a long haul 10base2 connection" LFJ
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: IT
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:40 PM
> Subject: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
>
>
> Here is my dilemma.
> All the phones in my callmanager 4.0 setup do not have "external phone
> number mask" setup. Instead, I have put the number mask in to the
> translation pattern for outbound calling. For example.
> My extension is 4990
> I dial a call that matches the 8.@ route pattern, and the call gets
> routed out the PRI Gateway, and the pattern applies the "Calling Party
> Transform Mask" of 323860XXXX
> This results in the caller-id showing up as 323-860-4990. Perfect.
> Now here are the problems with this solution. If I enable callforwarding
> on my phone (sending them to my cellphone), the caller-id gets messed
> up. Here is why:
> Let's say my friend at 310-833-5625 calls me on my cisco phone. The call
> hits the phone, but there is a CFwdAll set.
> The call forwards to 813239438833 (my cell with the outgoing prefix of
> 8).
> When the call forwards, it runs through the route pattern 8.@
> The call exits the PRI Gateway, and the Calling Party Transform Mask
> applied is 323860XXXX.
> The call reaches my cellphone, and the caller-id says 323-860-5625
> So, only the last 4 digits are from the original callers phone number,
> and the rest are from the route pattern's transform mask.
> Needless to say, this is a problem.
>
> One solution I have found is to eliminate the "Calling Party Transform
> Mask" from all route patterns. Then, I add an "External Phone Number
> Mask" to each and every line on my phone. This way, when I call out from
> my phone, the caller-id is correct, and calls forwarded through my phone
> retain their caller-id when they go through the route pattern. This is a
> serious maintenance nightmare, as I would have number mask's all over
> the place. However, the upside of this route, is that the 2 people in
> the office who want caller-id blocked on their outbound calls can do
> so...(anyone know an easier way?)
>
> I know other people have had to deal with this, but I cannot find the
> answer in my archives of this mailing list.
>
> Have you ever dealt with this, and do you have a solution that will
> allow me to keep the number masks in the route pattern?
>
| |
| Lelio Fulgenzi 2006-02-08, 5:45 pm |
| The other thing I like about this is that the main number is on the first line of the phone! If you've been working here for a long time, you know the number, but if you are visiting, you may not know the main number. I wish they would allow presentation characters like the ()- though, so you could format the number nicely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more jitter than an
IP phone on a long haul 10base2 connection" LFJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Ayoub
To: Ryan Ratliff
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
...One solution I have found is to eliminate the "Calling Party Transform
Mask" from all route patterns. Then, I add an "External Phone Number
Mask" to each and every line on my phone. This way, when I call out from
my phone, the caller-id is correct, and calls forwarded through my phone
retain their caller-id when they go through the route pattern. This is a
serious maintenance nightmare...
That was our solution as well. If you find a better one, let us know!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Ratliff" <rratliff@cisco.com>
To: "IT" <it@cimgroup.com>
Cc: <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
BAT?
It can easily modify your external calling party number.
-Ryan
On Feb 8, 2006, at 3:40 PM, IT wrote:
Here is my dilemma.
All the phones in my callmanager 4.0 setup do not have "external phone
number mask" setup. Instead, I have put the number mask in to the
translation pattern for outbound calling. For example.
My extension is 4990
I dial a call that matches the 8.@ route pattern, and the call gets
routed out the PRI Gateway, and the pattern applies the "Calling Party
Transform Mask" of 323860XXXX
This results in the caller-id showing up as 323-860-4990. Perfect.
Now here are the problems with this solution. If I enable callforwarding
on my phone (sending them to my cellphone), the caller-id gets messed
up. Here is why:
Let's say my friend at 310-833-5625 calls me on my cisco phone. The call
hits the phone, but there is a CFwdAll set.
The call forwards to 813239438833 (my cell with the outgoing prefix of
8).
When the call forwards, it runs through the route pattern 8.@
The call exits the PRI Gateway, and the Calling Party Transform Mask
applied is 323860XXXX.
The call reaches my cellphone, and the caller-id says 323-860-5625
So, only the last 4 digits are from the original callers phone number,
and the rest are from the route pattern's transform mask.
Needless to say, this is a problem.
One solution I have found is to eliminate the "Calling Party Transform
Mask" from all route patterns. Then, I add an "External Phone Number
Mask" to each and every line on my phone. This way, when I call out from
my phone, the caller-id is correct, and calls forwarded through my phone
retain their caller-id when they go through the route pattern. This is a
serious maintenance nightmare, as I would have number mask's all over
the place. However, the upside of this route, is that the 2 people in
the office who want caller-id blocked on their outbound calls can do
so...(anyone know an easier way?)
I know other people have had to deal with this, but I cannot find the
answer in my archives of this mailing list.
Have you ever dealt with this, and do you have a solution that will
allow me to keep the number masks in the route pattern?
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
|
| But that wont fix the problem. I want to see the actual callers
caller-id. The original callers cell phone number will now be covered up
by the telco with my companies main number. Many people here forward all
their calls to their cellphone, and this basically eliminates caller-id
for them...
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Justin
Steinberg
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:27 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
A really easy fix for this problem is to call your Telco and request a
'screening range'.
They can populate a screening range with all the DIDs on your PRI.
Then whenever an outbound call is placed from your site the Telco
checks the ANI that CallManager is sending. If the ANI is a valid DID
then it is passed without modification. If the ANI is something
outside of your DID range then the telco overwrites your ANI with your
main phone number.
All the major telco's I've dealt with support the screening range
concept in one way or the other.
Of course, a side effect of this problem is you can no longer prank
your friends - and other legitimate things such as wanting to send out
a toll-free number as your ANI.
Justin
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:50:09 -0500
> From: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
> To: "IT" <it@cimgroup.com>, <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID: <00c701c62cf1$41208ab0$30196883@cfs.uoguelph.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> So you're saying that if I forward my phone offcampus to a phone that
has call display, what I see on the other side depends on whether I use
the phones external calling mask or the route pattern mask? I don't use
wildcards, I simply populate the field with our main number. If I have
the external mask set per phone, I will see the original caller's
number, but if I use the mask on the RP I will see my main number?
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more
jitter than an
> IP phone on a long haul 10base2 connection"
LFJ
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: IT
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:40 PM
> Subject: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
>
>
> Here is my dilemma.
> All the phones in my callmanager 4.0 setup do not have "external
phone
> number mask" setup. Instead, I have put the number mask in to the
> translation pattern for outbound calling. For example.
> My extension is 4990
> I dial a call that matches the 8.@ route pattern, and the call gets
> routed out the PRI Gateway, and the pattern applies the "Calling
Party
> Transform Mask" of 323860XXXX
> This results in the caller-id showing up as 323-860-4990. Perfect.
> Now here are the problems with this solution. If I enable
callforwarding
> on my phone (sending them to my cellphone), the caller-id gets messed
> up. Here is why:
> Let's say my friend at 310-833-5625 calls me on my cisco phone. The
call
> hits the phone, but there is a CFwdAll set.
> The call forwards to 813239438833 (my cell with the outgoing prefix
of
> 8).
> When the call forwards, it runs through the route pattern 8.@
> The call exits the PRI Gateway, and the Calling Party Transform Mask
> applied is 323860XXXX.
> The call reaches my cellphone, and the caller-id says 323-860-5625
> So, only the last 4 digits are from the original callers phone
number,
> and the rest are from the route pattern's transform mask.
> Needless to say, this is a problem.
>
> One solution I have found is to eliminate the "Calling Party
Transform
> Mask" from all route patterns. Then, I add an "External Phone Number
> Mask" to each and every line on my phone. This way, when I call out
from
> my phone, the caller-id is correct, and calls forwarded through my
phone
> retain their caller-id when they go through the route pattern. This
is a
> serious maintenance nightmare, as I would have number mask's all over
> the place. However, the upside of this route, is that the 2 people in
> the office who want caller-id blocked on their outbound calls can do
> so...(anyone know an easier way?)
>
> I know other people have had to deal with this, but I cannot find the
> answer in my archives of this mailing list.
>
> Have you ever dealt with this, and do you have a solution that will
> allow me to keep the number masks in the route pattern?
>
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Voll, Scott 2006-02-09, 5:45 pm |
| What's wrong with using BAT like Ryan stated and changing all the phones
mask to the 323860XXXX mask.
Shouldn't be a big nightmare.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of IT
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:45 PM
To: Justin Steinberg; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
But that wont fix the problem. I want to see the actual callers
caller-id. The original callers cell phone number will now be covered up
by the telco with my companies main number. Many people here forward all
their calls to their cellphone, and this basically eliminates caller-id
for them...
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Justin
Steinberg
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:27 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
A really easy fix for this problem is to call your Telco and request a
'screening range'.
They can populate a screening range with all the DIDs on your PRI.
Then whenever an outbound call is placed from your site the Telco
checks the ANI that CallManager is sending. If the ANI is a valid DID
then it is passed without modification. If the ANI is something
outside of your DID range then the telco overwrites your ANI with your
main phone number.
All the major telco's I've dealt with support the screening range
concept in one way or the other.
Of course, a side effect of this problem is you can no longer prank
your friends - and other legitimate things such as wanting to send out
a toll-free number as your ANI.
Justin
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:50:09 -0500
> From: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
> To: "IT" <it@cimgroup.com>, <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID: <00c701c62cf1$41208ab0$30196883@cfs.uoguelph.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> So you're saying that if I forward my phone offcampus to a phone that
has call display, what I see on the other side depends on whether I use
the phones external calling mask or the route pattern mask? I don't use
wildcards, I simply populate the field with our main number. If I have
the external mask set per phone, I will see the original caller's
number, but if I use the mask on the RP I will see my main number?
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more
jitter than an
> IP phone on a long haul 10base2 connection"
LFJ
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: IT
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:40 PM
> Subject: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
>
>
> Here is my dilemma.
> All the phones in my callmanager 4.0 setup do not have "external
phone
> number mask" setup. Instead, I have put the number mask in to the
> translation pattern for outbound calling. For example.
> My extension is 4990
> I dial a call that matches the 8.@ route pattern, and the call gets
> routed out the PRI Gateway, and the pattern applies the "Calling
Party
> Transform Mask" of 323860XXXX
> This results in the caller-id showing up as 323-860-4990. Perfect.
> Now here are the problems with this solution. If I enable
callforwarding
> on my phone (sending them to my cellphone), the caller-id gets messed
> up. Here is why:
> Let's say my friend at 310-833-5625 calls me on my cisco phone. The
call
> hits the phone, but there is a CFwdAll set.
> The call forwards to 813239438833 (my cell with the outgoing prefix
of
> 8).
> When the call forwards, it runs through the route pattern 8.@
> The call exits the PRI Gateway, and the Calling Party Transform Mask
> applied is 323860XXXX.
> The call reaches my cellphone, and the caller-id says 323-860-5625
> So, only the last 4 digits are from the original callers phone
number,
> and the rest are from the route pattern's transform mask.
> Needless to say, this is a problem.
>
> One solution I have found is to eliminate the "Calling Party
Transform
> Mask" from all route patterns. Then, I add an "External Phone Number
> Mask" to each and every line on my phone. This way, when I call out
from
> my phone, the caller-id is correct, and calls forwarded through my
phone
> retain their caller-id when they go through the route pattern. This
is a
> serious maintenance nightmare, as I would have number mask's all over
> the place. However, the upside of this route, is that the 2 people in
> the office who want caller-id blocked on their outbound calls can do
> so...(anyone know an easier way?)
>
> I know other people have had to deal with this, but I cannot find the
> answer in my archives of this mailing list.
>
> Have you ever dealt with this, and do you have a solution that will
> allow me to keep the number masks in the route pattern?
>
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
|
| We are going this route, but instead of using BAT, we wrote a nice
little SQL query, since we have several different prefixes. We'll see
how it goes...
-----Original Message-----
From: Voll, Scott [mailto:Scott.Voll@wesd.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:21 AM
To: IT; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
What's wrong with using BAT like Ryan stated and changing all the phones
mask to the 323860XXXX mask.
Shouldn't be a big nightmare.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of IT
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:45 PM
To: Justin Steinberg; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
But that wont fix the problem. I want to see the actual callers
caller-id. The original callers cell phone number will now be covered up
by the telco with my companies main number. Many people here forward all
their calls to their cellphone, and this basically eliminates caller-id
for them...
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Justin
Steinberg
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:27 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
A really easy fix for this problem is to call your Telco and request a
'screening range'.
They can populate a screening range with all the DIDs on your PRI.
Then whenever an outbound call is placed from your site the Telco
checks the ANI that CallManager is sending. If the ANI is a valid DID
then it is passed without modification. If the ANI is something
outside of your DID range then the telco overwrites your ANI with your
main phone number.
All the major telco's I've dealt with support the screening range
concept in one way or the other.
Of course, a side effect of this problem is you can no longer prank
your friends - and other legitimate things such as wanting to send out
a toll-free number as your ANI.
Justin
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:50:09 -0500
> From: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
> To: "IT" <it@cimgroup.com>, <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID: <00c701c62cf1$41208ab0$30196883@cfs.uoguelph.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> So you're saying that if I forward my phone offcampus to a phone that
has call display, what I see on the other side depends on whether I use
the phones external calling mask or the route pattern mask? I don't use
wildcards, I simply populate the field with our main number. If I have
the external mask set per phone, I will see the original caller's
number, but if I use the mask on the RP I will see my main number?
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more
jitter than an
> IP phone on a long haul 10base2 connection"
LFJ
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: IT
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:40 PM
> Subject: [cisco-voip] route patterns/callerid mask/callforward
>
>
> Here is my dilemma.
> All the phones in my callmanager 4.0 setup do not have "external
phone
> number mask" setup. Instead, I have put the number mask in to the
> translation pattern for outbound calling. For example.
> My extension is 4990
> I dial a call that matches the 8.@ route pattern, and the call gets
> routed out the PRI Gateway, and the pattern applies the "Calling
Party
> Transform Mask" of 323860XXXX
> This results in the caller-id showing up as 323-860-4990. Perfect.
> Now here are the problems with this solution. If I enable
callforwarding
> on my phone (sending them to my cellphone), the caller-id gets messed
> up. Here is why:
> Let's say my friend at 310-833-5625 calls me on my cisco phone. The
call
> hits the phone, but there is a CFwdAll set.
> The call forwards to 813239438833 (my cell with the outgoing prefix
of
> 8).
> When the call forwards, it runs through the route pattern 8.@
> The call exits the PRI Gateway, and the Calling Party Transform Mask
> applied is 323860XXXX.
> The call reaches my cellphone, and the caller-id says 323-860-5625
> So, only the last 4 digits are from the original callers phone
number,
> and the rest are from the route pattern's transform mask.
> Needless to say, this is a problem.
>
> One solution I have found is to eliminate the "Calling Party
Transform
> Mask" from all route patterns. Then, I add an "External Phone Number
> Mask" to each and every line on my phone. This way, when I call out
from
> my phone, the caller-id is correct, and calls forwarded through my
phone
> retain their caller-id when they go through the route pattern. This
is a
> serious maintenance nightmare, as I would have number mask's all over
> the place. However, the upside of this route, is that the 2 people in
> the office who want caller-id blocked on their outbound calls can do
> so...(anyone know an easier way?)
>
> I know other people have had to deal with this, but I cannot find the
> answer in my archives of this mailing list.
>
> Have you ever dealt with this, and do you have a solution that will
> allow me to keep the number masks in the route pattern?
>
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
|
|
|
|
|