Voice over IP Cisco - caller id already in?

Author

caller id already in?

Adam

2007-03-16, 7:11 pm

I have site with an FXO port that will not receive caller id
information. I watched a "debug vpm signal" and found an entry that
said "Error caller id already in progress" and cannot work out what
that means. A copy of the debug output is included below.

Any suggestions?

-Adam

Mar 16 15:05:49.888: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0, FXOLS_ONHOOK, E_DSP_SIG_0000]fx
ols_onhook_ringing
Mar 16 15:05:49.888: htsp_timer3 - 5600 msec
Mar 16 15:05:49.888: [1/0/0] htsp_start_caller_id_rx. Error caller id already in
progress
Mar 16 15:05:49.888: htsp_timer - 125 msec
Mar 16 15:05:50.016: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0, FXOLS_WAIT_RING_MIN, E_HTSP_EVE
NT_TIMER]fxols_wait_ring_min_timer
Mar 16 15:05:50.016: htsp_timer - 10000 msec
Mar 16 15:05:51.979: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0, FXOLS_RINGING, E_DSP_SIG_0100]
Mar 16 15:05:51.979: fxols_ringing_not
Mar 16 15:05:51.979: htsp_timer_stop
Mar 16 15:05:51.979: htsp_timer_stop3 htsp_setup_ind
Mar 16 15:05:51.979: [1/0/0] get_fxo_caller_id:Caller ID receive failed. parseC
allerIDString:no data.
Mar 16 15:05:51.979: [1/0/0] get_local_station_id calling num= calling name= cal
ling time=03/16 15:05 orig called=
Mar 16 15:05:51.987: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0, FXOLS_WAIT_SETUP_ACK, E_HTSP_SE
TUP_ACK]
Mar 16 15:05:51.987: fxols_wait_setup_ack:
Mar 16 15:05:51.987: [1/0/0] set signal state = 0xC timestamp = 0fxols_check_aut
o_call
Mar 16 15:05:52.003: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0, FXOLS_PROCEEDING, E_HTSP_PROCEE
DING]fxols_offhook_proc
Mar 16 15:05:52.003: htsp_timer - 120000 msechtsp_alert_notify
Mar 16 15:05:52.092: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0, FXOLS_PROCEEDING, E_HTSP_ALERT]
fxols_offhook_alerthtsp_call_service_msg
htsp_call_service_msg not EFXS (2)
Mar 16 15:05:52.176: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0, FXOLS_PROCEEDING, E_DSP_SIG_011
0]fxols_rvs_battery
Mar 16 15:05:52.176: htsp_timer_stop2 htsp_call_service_msghtsp_call_service_m
sg
not EFXS (2)
Mar 16 15:05:52.260: htsp_call_bridged invoked
Mar 16 15:05:52.268: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0, FXOLS_PROCEED_RVS_BT, E_HTSP_CO
NNECT]fxols_offhook_connect
Mar 16 15:05:52.272: htsp_timer_stop
Mar 16 15:05:52.468: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0, FXOLS_CONNECT, E_HTSP_VOICE_CUT
_THROUGH]fxols_connect_proc_voice

Paul Choi

2007-03-17, 7:11 pm

I don't recall ever seen caller ID work over FXO ports
before. Please let me know if you get it working.

--- Adam <cisco@adman.net> wrote:

> I have site with an FXO port that will not receive
> caller id
> information. I watched a "debug vpm signal" and
> found an entry that
> said "Error caller id already in progress" and
> cannot work out what
> that means. A copy of the debug output is included
> below.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> -Adam
>
> Mar 16 15:05:49.888: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_ONHOOK, E_DSP_SIG_0000]fx
> ols_onhook_ringing
> Mar 16 15:05:49.888: htsp_timer3 - 5600 msec
> Mar 16 15:05:49.888: [1/0/0]
> htsp_start_caller_id_rx. Error caller id already in
> progress
> Mar 16 15:05:49.888: htsp_timer - 125 msec
> Mar 16 15:05:50.016: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_WAIT_RING_MIN, E_HTSP_EVE
> NT_TIMER]fxols_wait_ring_min_timer
> Mar 16 15:05:50.016: htsp_timer - 10000 msec
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_RINGING, E_DSP_SIG_0100]
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: fxols_ringing_not
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: htsp_timer_stop
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: htsp_timer_stop3 htsp_setup_ind
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: [1/0/0]
> get_fxo_caller_id:Caller ID receive failed. parseC
> allerIDString:no data.
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: [1/0/0] get_local_station_id
> calling num= calling name= cal
> ling time=03/16 15:05 orig called=
> Mar 16 15:05:51.987: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_WAIT_SETUP_ACK, E_HTSP_SE
> TUP_ACK]
> Mar 16 15:05:51.987: fxols_wait_setup_ack:
> Mar 16 15:05:51.987: [1/0/0] set signal state = 0xC
> timestamp = 0fxols_check_aut
> o_call
> Mar 16 15:05:52.003: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_PROCEEDING, E_HTSP_PROCEE
> DING]fxols_offhook_proc
> Mar 16 15:05:52.003: htsp_timer - 120000
> msechtsp_alert_notify
> Mar 16 15:05:52.092: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_PROCEEDING, E_HTSP_ALERT]
>
fxols_offhook_alerthtsp_call_service_msg
htsp_call_service_msg
> not EFXS (2)
> Mar 16 15:05:52.176: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_PROCEEDING, E_DSP_SIG_011
> 0]fxols_rvs_battery
> Mar 16 15:05:52.176: htsp_timer_stop2
> htsp_call_service_msghtsp_call_service_m
sg
> not EFXS (2)
> Mar 16 15:05:52.260: htsp_call_bridged invoked
> Mar 16 15:05:52.268: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_PROCEED_RVS_BT, E_HTSP_CO
> NNECT]fxols_offhook_connect
> Mar 16 15:05:52.272: htsp_timer_stop
> Mar 16 15:05:52.468: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_CONNECT, E_HTSP_VOICE_CUT
> _THROUGH]fxols_connect_proc_voice
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

________________________________________
________________________________________
____
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news

Voll, Scott

2007-03-19, 1:11 pm

My understanding is that it works only on h323.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Choi
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 5:07 PM
To: Adam; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?

I don't recall ever seen caller ID work over FXO ports
before. Please let me know if you get it working.

--- Adam <cisco@adman.net> wrote:

> I have site with an FXO port that will not receive
> caller id
> information. I watched a "debug vpm signal" and
> found an entry that
> said "Error caller id already in progress" and
> cannot work out what
> that means. A copy of the debug output is included
> below.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> -Adam
>
> Mar 16 15:05:49.888: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_ONHOOK, E_DSP_SIG_0000]fx
> ols_onhook_ringing
> Mar 16 15:05:49.888: htsp_timer3 - 5600 msec
> Mar 16 15:05:49.888: [1/0/0]
> htsp_start_caller_id_rx. Error caller id already in
> progress
> Mar 16 15:05:49.888: htsp_timer - 125 msec
> Mar 16 15:05:50.016: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_WAIT_RING_MIN, E_HTSP_EVE
> NT_TIMER]fxols_wait_ring_min_timer
> Mar 16 15:05:50.016: htsp_timer - 10000 msec
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_RINGING, E_DSP_SIG_0100]
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: fxols_ringing_not
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: htsp_timer_stop
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: htsp_timer_stop3 htsp_setup_ind
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: [1/0/0]
> get_fxo_caller_id:Caller ID receive failed. parseC
> allerIDString:no data.
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: [1/0/0] get_local_station_id
> calling num= calling name= cal
> ling time=03/16 15:05 orig called=
> Mar 16 15:05:51.987: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_WAIT_SETUP_ACK, E_HTSP_SE
> TUP_ACK]
> Mar 16 15:05:51.987: fxols_wait_setup_ack:
> Mar 16 15:05:51.987: [1/0/0] set signal state = 0xC
> timestamp = 0fxols_check_aut
> o_call
> Mar 16 15:05:52.003: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_PROCEEDING, E_HTSP_PROCEE
> DING]fxols_offhook_proc
> Mar 16 15:05:52.003: htsp_timer - 120000
> msechtsp_alert_notify
> Mar 16 15:05:52.092: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_PROCEEDING, E_HTSP_ALERT]
>
fxols_offhook_alerthtsp_call_service_msg
htsp_call_service_msg
> not EFXS (2)
> Mar 16 15:05:52.176: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_PROCEEDING, E_DSP_SIG_011
> 0]fxols_rvs_battery
> Mar 16 15:05:52.176: htsp_timer_stop2
> htsp_call_service_msghtsp_call_service_m
sg
> not EFXS (2)
> Mar 16 15:05:52.260: htsp_call_bridged invoked
> Mar 16 15:05:52.268: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_PROCEED_RVS_BT, E_HTSP_CO
> NNECT]fxols_offhook_connect
> Mar 16 15:05:52.272: htsp_timer_stop
> Mar 16 15:05:52.468: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_CONNECT, E_HTSP_VOICE_CUT
> _THROUGH]fxols_connect_proc_voice
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

________________________________________
________________________________
____________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Matt Slaga $US$

2007-03-19, 1:12 pm

It requires an FXO-M1 and H323, unless cisco has fixed this in later
versions. The M1 is definitely required in the US.

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Voll, Scott
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:57 AM
To: Paul Choi; Adam; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?

My understanding is that it works only on h323.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Choi
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 5:07 PM
To: Adam; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?

I don't recall ever seen caller ID work over FXO ports
before. Please let me know if you get it working.

--- Adam <cisco@adman.net> wrote:

> I have site with an FXO port that will not receive
> caller id
> information. I watched a "debug vpm signal" and
> found an entry that
> said "Error caller id already in progress" and
> cannot work out what
> that means. A copy of the debug output is included
> below.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> -Adam
>
> Mar 16 15:05:49.888: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_ONHOOK, E_DSP_SIG_0000]fx
> ols_onhook_ringing
> Mar 16 15:05:49.888: htsp_timer3 - 5600 msec
> Mar 16 15:05:49.888: [1/0/0]
> htsp_start_caller_id_rx. Error caller id already in
> progress
> Mar 16 15:05:49.888: htsp_timer - 125 msec
> Mar 16 15:05:50.016: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_WAIT_RING_MIN, E_HTSP_EVE
> NT_TIMER]fxols_wait_ring_min_timer
> Mar 16 15:05:50.016: htsp_timer - 10000 msec
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_RINGING, E_DSP_SIG_0100]
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: fxols_ringing_not
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: htsp_timer_stop
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: htsp_timer_stop3 htsp_setup_ind
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: [1/0/0]
> get_fxo_caller_id:Caller ID receive failed. parseC
> allerIDString:no data.
> Mar 16 15:05:51.979: [1/0/0] get_local_station_id
> calling num= calling name= cal
> ling time=03/16 15:05 orig called=
> Mar 16 15:05:51.987: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_WAIT_SETUP_ACK, E_HTSP_SE
> TUP_ACK]
> Mar 16 15:05:51.987: fxols_wait_setup_ack:
> Mar 16 15:05:51.987: [1/0/0] set signal state = 0xC
> timestamp = 0fxols_check_aut
> o_call
> Mar 16 15:05:52.003: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_PROCEEDING, E_HTSP_PROCEE
> DING]fxols_offhook_proc
> Mar 16 15:05:52.003: htsp_timer - 120000
> msechtsp_alert_notify
> Mar 16 15:05:52.092: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_PROCEEDING, E_HTSP_ALERT]
>
fxols_offhook_alerthtsp_call_service_msg
htsp_call_service_msg
> not EFXS (2)
> Mar 16 15:05:52.176: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_PROCEEDING, E_DSP_SIG_011
> 0]fxols_rvs_battery
> Mar 16 15:05:52.176: htsp_timer_stop2
> htsp_call_service_msghtsp_call_service_m
sg
> not EFXS (2)
> Mar 16 15:05:52.260: htsp_call_bridged invoked
> Mar 16 15:05:52.268: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_PROCEED_RVS_BT, E_HTSP_CO
> NNECT]fxols_offhook_connect
> Mar 16 15:05:52.272: htsp_timer_stop
> Mar 16 15:05:52.468: htsp_process_event: [1/0/0,
> FXOLS_CONNECT, E_HTSP_VOICE_CUT
> _THROUGH]fxols_connect_proc_voice
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

________________________________________
________________________________
____________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
________________________________________
_______
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
-----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:

This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
designated addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank you.

Paul Choi

2007-03-19, 1:12 pm

So this

NAME: "2nd generation four port FXO voice interface
daughtercard on Slot 0 SubSlot 3", DESCR: "2nd
generation four port FXO voice interface daughtercard"
PID: VIC2-4FXO , VID: V01 , SN: FOC10390M7A

is not going to enable caller-id?

This is frustrating. I would like the customer to have
caller-id whereever possible.

--- "Matt Slaga (US)" <Matt.Slaga@us.didata.com>
wrote:

> It requires an FXO-M1 and H323, unless cisco has
> fixed this in later
> versions. The M1 is definitely required in the US.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On
> Behalf Of Voll, Scott
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:57 AM
> To: Paul Choi; Adam; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?
>
> My understanding is that it works only on h323.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On
> Behalf Of Paul Choi
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 5:07 PM
> To: Adam; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?
>
> I don't recall ever seen caller ID work over FXO
> ports
> before. Please let me know if you get it working.
>
> --- Adam <cisco@adman.net> wrote:
>
> in
> htsp_setup_ind
> parseC
> 0xC
>
fxols_offhook_alerthtsp_call_service_msg
htsp_call_service_msg
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________
________________________________
> ____________
> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
> ________________________________________
_______
> 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
> -----------------------------------------
> Disclaimer:
>
> This e-mail communication and any attachments may
> contain
> confidential and privileged information and is for
> use by the
> designated addressee(s) named above only. If you
> are not the
> intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you
> have received
> this communication in error and that any use or
> reproduction of
> this email or its contents is strictly prohibited
> and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this communication
> in error, please
> notify us immediately by replying to this message
> and deleting it
> from your computer. Thank you.
>

________________________________________
________________________________________
____
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ar...edsearch_v2.php

Matt Slaga $US$

2007-03-19, 1:12 pm

No, you are correct. The second gen FXO cards should have the voltage
sensor necessary for caller-id.

You need to enable it under the voice-port x/x/x - caller-id enable.

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Choi
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:07 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?

So this

NAME: "2nd generation four port FXO voice interface
daughtercard on Slot 0 SubSlot 3", DESCR: "2nd
generation four port FXO voice interface daughtercard"
PID: VIC2-4FXO , VID: V01 , SN: FOC10390M7A

is not going to enable caller-id?

This is frustrating. I would like the customer to have
caller-id whereever possible.

--- "Matt Slaga (US)" <Matt.Slaga@us.didata.com>
wrote:

> It requires an FXO-M1 and H323, unless cisco has
> fixed this in later
> versions. The M1 is definitely required in the US.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On
> Behalf Of Voll, Scott
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:57 AM
> To: Paul Choi; Adam; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?
>
> My understanding is that it works only on h323.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On
> Behalf Of Paul Choi
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 5:07 PM
> To: Adam; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?
>
> I don't recall ever seen caller ID work over FXO
> ports
> before. Please let me know if you get it working.
>
> --- Adam <cisco@adman.net> wrote:
>
> in
> htsp_setup_ind
> parseC
> 0xC
>
fxols_offhook_alerthtsp_call_service_msg
htsp_call_service_msg
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________
________________________________
> ____________
> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
> ________________________________________
_______
> 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
> -----------------------------------------
> Disclaimer:
>
> This e-mail communication and any attachments may
> contain
> confidential and privileged information and is for
> use by the
> designated addressee(s) named above only. If you
> are not the
> intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you
> have received
> this communication in error and that any use or
> reproduction of
> this email or its contents is strictly prohibited
> and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this communication
> in error, please
> notify us immediately by replying to this message
> and deleting it
> from your computer. Thank you.
>

________________________________________
________________________________
____________
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ar...edsearch_v2.php
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
-----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:

This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
designated addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank you.

CarlosOrtiz@bayviewfinancial.com

2007-03-19, 1:12 pm

If it's the voltage sensor that enables caller id....Why no support for
MGCP?

"Matt Slaga $US$" <Matt.Slaga@us.didata.com>
Sent by: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
03/19/2007 01:31 PM

To
"Paul Choi" <asobihoudai@yahoo.com>, <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
cc

Subject
Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?

No, you are correct. The second gen FXO cards should have the voltage
sensor necessary for caller-id.

You need to enable it under the voice-port x/x/x - caller-id enable.

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Choi
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:07 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?

So this

NAME: "2nd generation four port FXO voice interface
daughtercard on Slot 0 SubSlot 3", DESCR: "2nd
generation four port FXO voice interface daughtercard"
PID: VIC2-4FXO , VID: V01 , SN: FOC10390M7A

is not going to enable caller-id?

This is frustrating. I would like the customer to have
caller-id whereever possible.

--- "Matt Slaga (US)" <Matt.Slaga@us.didata.com>
wrote:

> It requires an FXO-M1 and H323, unless cisco has
> fixed this in later
> versions. The M1 is definitely required in the US.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On
> Behalf Of Voll, Scott
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:57 AM
> To: Paul Choi; Adam; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?
>
> My understanding is that it works only on h323.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On
> Behalf Of Paul Choi
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 5:07 PM
> To: Adam; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?
>
> I don't recall ever seen caller ID work over FXO
> ports
> before. Please let me know if you get it working.
>
> --- Adam <cisco@adman.net> wrote:
>
> in
> htsp_setup_ind
> parseC
> 0xC
>
fxols_offhook_alerthtsp_call_service_msg
htsp_call_service_msg
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________
________________________________
> ____________
> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
> ________________________________________
_______
> 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
> -----------------------------------------
> Disclaimer:
>
> This e-mail communication and any attachments may
> contain
> confidential and privileged information and is for
> use by the
> designated addressee(s) named above only. If you
> are not the
> intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you
> have received
> this communication in error and that any use or
> reproduction of
> this email or its contents is strictly prohibited
> and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this communication
> in error, please
> notify us immediately by replying to this message
> and deleting it
> from your computer. Thank you.
>

________________________________________
________________________________
____________
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ar...edsearch_v2.php
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
-----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:

This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
designated addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank you.

________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Paul Choi

2007-03-19, 1:12 pm

Very curious.

When I set 'caller-id enable' on the port, it just
made the FXO port ring two more times before the
gateway picked up the line. In other words, the caller
would hear three rings instead of one before the
customer would actually hear it ring and pick up the
phone. Maybe I have the FXO's signalling incorrect?

Any cisco folks around that would like to comment on
this?

--- "Matt Slaga (US)" <Matt.Slaga@us.didata.com>
wrote:

> No, you are correct. The second gen FXO cards
> should have the voltage
> sensor necessary for caller-id.
>
> You need to enable it under the voice-port x/x/x -
> caller-id enable.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On
> Behalf Of Paul Choi
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:07 PM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?
>
> So this
>
> NAME: "2nd generation four port FXO voice interface
> daughtercard on Slot 0 SubSlot 3", DESCR: "2nd
> generation four port FXO voice interface
> daughtercard"
> PID: VIC2-4FXO , VID: V01 , SN: FOC10390M7A
>
> is not going to enable caller-id?
>
> This is frustrating. I would like the customer to
> have
> caller-id whereever possible.
>
> --- "Matt Slaga (US)" <Matt.Slaga@us.didata.com>
> wrote:
>
> US.
> receive
> included
> get_local_station_id
>
fxols_offhook_alerthtsp_call_service_msg
htsp_call_service_msg
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
________________________________________
________________________________
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> you
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________
________________________________
> ____________
> The fish are biting.
> Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search
> Marketing.
>
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ar...edsearch_v2.php
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> -----------------------------------------
> Disclaimer:
>
> This e-mail communication and any attachments may
> contain
> confidential and privileged information and is for
> use by the
> designated addressee(s) named above only. If you
> are not the
> intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you
> have received
> this communication in error and that any use or
> reproduction of
> this email or its contents is strictly prohibited
> and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this communication
> in error, please
> notify us immediately by replying to this message
> and deleting it
> from your computer. Thank you.
>

________________________________________
________________________________________
____
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

Ryan LaTorre $rylatorr$

2007-03-19, 7:11 pm

Hi Paul,

Caller ID information is typically sent between the first and second
rings, so enabling caller-id on the voice port forces the gateway to
wait for the info to arrive before answering the call. I believe the
call is answered as soon as the call info has been collected.

-Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Choi
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:44 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?

Very curious.

When I set 'caller-id enable' on the port, it just made the FXO port
ring two more times before the gateway picked up the line. In other
words, the caller would hear three rings instead of one before the
customer would actually hear it ring and pick up the phone. Maybe I have
the FXO's signalling incorrect?

Any cisco folks around that would like to comment on this?

Paul Choi

2007-03-19, 7:12 pm

Ryan,

Thanks a lot! I appreciate you taking the time to
answer my question about FXO 'caller-id enable.'

Does the LEC have to have something particular setup
for this to work? From my experiences, the 'caller-id
enable' command only made the phone ring more times
until the gateway picked up *and* the IP phones didn't
display any caller information.

This was a CCME installation in the middle of very
rural Mississippi. If I get a chance to try the
command again with users, I'll see if I can get it to
work or not but I am not too keen on the extra phone
rings because of the caller's perception that the
customer is taking too long to answer phone calls.

Sincerely,
Paul

--- "Ryan LaTorre (rylatorr)" <rylatorr@cisco.com>
wrote:

>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Caller ID information is typically sent between the
> first and second
> rings, so enabling caller-id on the voice port
> forces the gateway to
> wait for the info to arrive before answering the
> call. I believe the
> call is answered as soon as the call info has been
> collected.
>
> -Ryan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On
> Behalf Of Paul Choi
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:44 PM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?
>
> Very curious.
>
> When I set 'caller-id enable' on the port, it just
> made the FXO port
> ring two more times before the gateway picked up the
> line. In other
> words, the caller would hear three rings instead of
> one before the
> customer would actually hear it ring and pick up the
> phone. Maybe I have
> the FXO's signalling incorrect?
>
> Any cisco folks around that would like to comment on
> this?
>

________________________________________
________________________________________
____
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367

Ryan LaTorre $rylatorr$

2007-03-19, 7:12 pm

It sounds like caller ID isn't enabled on the lines. For POTS this is
usually a pay service (my local telco charges $5/month/line for this
feature).

-Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Choi
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 6:20 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?

Ryan,

Thanks a lot! I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question
about FXO 'caller-id enable.'

Does the LEC have to have something particular setup for this to work?
>From my experiences, the 'caller-id enable' command only made the phone
ring more times until the gateway picked up *and* the IP phones didn't
display any caller information.

This was a CCME installation in the middle of very rural Mississippi. If
I get a chance to try the command again with users, I'll see if I can
get it to work or not but I am not too keen on the extra phone rings
because of the caller's perception that the customer is taking too long
to answer phone calls.

Sincerely,
Paul

--- "Ryan LaTorre (rylatorr)" <rylatorr@cisco.com>
wrote:

>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Caller ID information is typically sent between the first and second
> rings, so enabling caller-id on the voice port forces the gateway to
> wait for the info to arrive before answering the call. I believe the
> call is answered as soon as the call info has been collected.
>
> -Ryan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Choi
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:44 PM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?
>
> Very curious.
>
> When I set 'caller-id enable' on the port, it just made the FXO port
> ring two more times before the gateway picked up the line. In other
> words, the caller would hear three rings instead of one before the
> customer would actually hear it ring and pick up the phone. Maybe I
> have the FXO's signalling incorrect?
>
> Any cisco folks around that would like to comment on this?
>

________________________________________
________________________________
____________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Paul Choi

2007-03-19, 7:12 pm

This sounds like the most probably reason. I, for some
stupid reason, assumed that most phone lines carried
caller ID when if I just thought about it for another
moment would have realized this almost never to be the
case.

Thanks,
Paul

--- "Ryan LaTorre (rylatorr)" <rylatorr@cisco.com>
wrote:

>
> It sounds like caller ID isn't enabled on the lines.
> For POTS this is
> usually a pay service (my local telco charges
> $5/month/line for this
> feature).
>
> -Ryan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On
> Behalf Of Paul Choi
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 6:20 PM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?
>
> Ryan,
>
> Thanks a lot! I appreciate you taking the time to
> answer my question
> about FXO 'caller-id enable.'
>
> Does the LEC have to have something particular setup
> for this to work?
> only made the phone
> ring more times until the gateway picked up *and*
> the IP phones didn't
> display any caller information.
>
> This was a CCME installation in the middle of very
> rural Mississippi. If
> I get a chance to try the command again with users,
> I'll see if I can
> get it to work or not but I am not too keen on the
> extra phone rings
> because of the caller's perception that the customer
> is taking too long
> to answer phone calls.
>
> Sincerely,
> Paul
>
> --- "Ryan LaTorre (rylatorr)" <rylatorr@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> the first and second
> forces the gateway to
> call. I believe the
> collected.
> Behalf Of Paul Choi
> made the FXO port
> the line. In other
> of one before the
> the phone. Maybe I
> on this?
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________
________________________________
> ____________
> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
> in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
>
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
> ________________________________________
_______
> 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
>

________________________________________
________________________________________
____
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

Paul Choi

2007-03-19, 7:12 pm

This sounds like the most probably reason. I, for some
stupid reason, assumed that most phone lines carried
caller ID when if I just thought about it for another
moment would have realized this almost never to be the
case.

Thanks,
Paul

--- "Ryan LaTorre (rylatorr)" <rylatorr@cisco.com>
wrote:

>
> It sounds like caller ID isn't enabled on the lines.
> For POTS this is
> usually a pay service (my local telco charges
> $5/month/line for this
> feature).
>
> -Ryan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On
> Behalf Of Paul Choi
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 6:20 PM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] caller id already in?
>
> Ryan,
>
> Thanks a lot! I appreciate you taking the time to
> answer my question
> about FXO 'caller-id enable.'
>
> Does the LEC have to have something particular setup
> for this to work?
> only made the phone
> ring more times until the gateway picked up *and*
> the IP phones didn't
> display any caller information.
>
> This was a CCME installation in the middle of very
> rural Mississippi. If
> I get a chance to try the command again with users,
> I'll see if I can
> get it to work or not but I am not too keen on the
> extra phone rings
> because of the caller's perception that the customer
> is taking too long
> to answer phone calls.
>
> Sincerely,
> Paul
>
> --- "Ryan LaTorre (rylatorr)" <rylatorr@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> the first and second
> forces the gateway to
> call. I believe the
> collected.
> Behalf Of Paul Choi
> made the FXO port
> the line. In other
> of one before the
> the phone. Maybe I
> on this?
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________
________________________________
> ____________
> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
> in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
>
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
> ________________________________________
_______
> 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
>

________________________________________
________________________________________
____
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news