We have a new CCM5.1 installation, so I may ask a few basic questions as
we work through our first deployment.  At the moment, we have
implemented RSI's Call Accounting system and have noticed that our
voicemail extension skews all of our reports significantly.  RSI claims
that this is a cisco configuration issue and that calls to that
extension should not be passed to the call accounting system.  Our
installer claims that there is no way to filter out reporting to certain
extensions.

Does anyone have experience with this? While we can certainly ignore the
reports of calls inbound and outbound to that extension, I'd like to
clean this up as much as possible.  The graphs of call lengths and call
costs would be much more meaningful without extraneous information like
this.

Thank you,

Joel Hames
Senior Director, Information Technology
Tamalpais Union High School District
jhames@tamdistrict.org

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

The verbiage provided is vague but i'm going to assume that CDR's for
MWI calls are the crux of the issue.  Those have been an issue before
and are certainly numerous enough to skew reporting.

The way CM is implemented Voicemail and the associated MWI transactions
are calls.  You can set CM service parameter "CDR log calls with zero
duration" to false so that CM does not record CDR for MWI.  However, you
risk losing CDR for other critical calls such as misdials/hangups to 911
where the caller hangs up before 911 service answers.  Most 911
districts consider these prank calls with a quota and begin charging.

Otherwise, no, there is no way to filter these calls from CDR. The
system dumps out CDR's of all calls.  Parsing, filtering, and
correlating are the job of the "Call Accounting and Reporting" package.

Just as cisco generates the CDR flat files, RSI has to parse and import
every CDR flat file.  They have equal opportunity to filter these
requests.  As a bonus, RSI can do it without contending for
CPU/Memory/DiskIO that would otherwise be used for processing your
actual calls.  It's a rather classic example of production vs. reporting.

/Wes

Hames, Joel wrote:
> We have a new CCM5.1 installation, so I may ask a few basic questions as
> we work through our first deployment.  At the moment, we have
> implemented RSI's Call Accounting system and have noticed that our
> voicemail extension skews all of our reports significantly.  RSI claims
> that this is a cisco configuration issue and that calls to that
> extension should not be passed to the call accounting system.  Our
> installer claims that there is no way to filter out reporting to certain
> extensions.
>
> Does anyone have experience with this? While we can certainly ignore the
> reports of calls inbound and outbound to that extension, I'd like to
> clean this up as much as possible.  The graphs of call lengths and call
> costs would be much more meaningful without extraneous information like
> this.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Joel Hames
> Senior Director, Information Technology
> Tamalpais Union High School District
> jhames@tamdistrict.org
>
>  ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Thanks for the clarification and I apologize for the vagueness of the
example.  We are seeing both calls to our voicemail extension (2000) and
to the MWI extensions (2090 and 2091).  We recently disabled reporting
for zero duration calls, but your point is well taken regarding 911
hangups.  I'll check with our implementer to see if our Emergency
Responder installation will help offset this loss of detail.  As for the
voicemail extension itself (2000) that is logging all calls transferred
to VM, I'll work with RSI again to see what they can do to help filter
out this information for reporting.

Joel Hames
Senior Director, Information Technology
Tamalpais Union High School District
jhames@tamdistrict.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Sisk [mailto:wsisk@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:32 AM
To: Hames, Joel
Cc: cisco VoIP
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Excluding extensions from CDR reporting

The verbiage provided is vague but i'm going to assume that CDR's for
MWI calls are the crux of the issue.  Those have been an issue before
and are certainly numerous enough to skew reporting.

The way CM is implemented Voicemail and the associated MWI transactions
are calls.  You can set CM service parameter "CDR log calls with zero
duration" to false so that CM does not record CDR for MWI.  However, you

risk losing CDR for other critical calls such as misdials/hangups to 911

where the caller hangs up before 911 service answers.  Most 911
districts consider these prank calls with a quota and begin charging.

Otherwise, no, there is no way to filter these calls from CDR. The
system dumps out CDR's of all calls.  Parsing, filtering, and
correlating are the job of the "Call Accounting and Reporting" package.

Just as cisco generates the CDR flat files, RSI has to parse and import
every CDR flat file.  They have equal opportunity to filter these
requests.  As a bonus, RSI can do it without contending for
CPU/Memory/DiskIO that would otherwise be used for processing your
actual calls.  It's a rather classic example of production vs.
reporting.

/Wes

Hames, Joel wrote:
> We have a new CCM5.1 installation, so I may ask a few basic questions
as
> we work through our first deployment.  At the moment, we have
> implemented RSI's Call Accounting system and have noticed that our
> voicemail extension skews all of our reports significantly.  RSI
claims
> that this is a cisco configuration issue and that calls to that
> extension should not be passed to the call accounting system.  Our
> installer claims that there is no way to filter out reporting to
certain
> extensions.
>
> Does anyone have experience with this? While we can certainly ignore
the
> reports of calls inbound and outbound to that extension, I'd like to
> clean this up as much as possible.  The graphs of call lengths and
call
> costs would be much more meaningful without extraneous information
like
> this.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Joel Hames
> Senior Director, Information Technology
> Tamalpais Union High School District
> jhames@tamdistrict.org
>
>  ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

if your using CER then 911 should not be an issue as it takes all the 911
calls and you don't really have a 911 or 9.911 route pattern.

on the other note.  Are you sure you don't want the VM data.  people from
outside still get VM if no one is there and there for I would see this as
needed info.

What are you doing with the reporting software that you don't what VM?

Scott

On Dec 27, 2007 10:41 AM, Hames, Joel <jhames@tamdistrict.org> wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification and I apologize for the vagueness of the
> example.  We are seeing both calls to our voicemail extension (2000) and
> to the MWI extensions (2090 and 2091).  We recently disabled reporting
> for zero duration calls, but your point is well taken regarding 911
> hangups.  I'll check with our implementer to see if our Emergency
> Responder installation will help offset this loss of detail.  As for the
> voicemail extension itself (2000) that is logging all calls transferred
> to VM, I'll work with RSI again to see what they can do to help filter
> out this information for reporting.
>
> Joel Hames
> Senior Director, Information Technology
> Tamalpais Union High School District
> jhames@tamdistrict.org
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes Sisk [mailto:wsisk@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:32 AM
> To: Hames, Joel
> Cc: cisco VoIP
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Excluding extensions from CDR reporting
>
> The verbiage provided is vague but i'm going to assume that CDR's for
> MWI calls are the crux of the issue.  Those have been an issue before
> and are certainly numerous enough to skew reporting.
>
> The way CM is implemented Voicemail and the associated MWI transactions
> are calls.  You can set CM service parameter "CDR log calls with zero
> duration" to false so that CM does not record CDR for MWI.  However, you
>
> risk losing CDR for other critical calls such as misdials/hangups to 911
>
> where the caller hangs up before 911 service answers.  Most 911
> districts consider these prank calls with a quota and begin charging.
>
> Otherwise, no, there is no way to filter these calls from CDR. The
> system dumps out CDR's of all calls.  Parsing, filtering, and
> correlating are the job of the "Call Accounting and Reporting" package.
>
> Just as cisco generates the CDR flat files, RSI has to parse and import
> every CDR flat file.  They have equal opportunity to filter these
> requests.  As a bonus, RSI can do it without contending for
> CPU/Memory/DiskIO that would otherwise be used for processing your
> actual calls.  It's a rather classic example of production vs.
> reporting.
>
> /Wes
>
> Hames, Joel wrote: 
> as 
> claims 
> certain 
> the 
> call 
> like 
>  ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Thinking about this more, I do want VM information in my call accounting
reporting.  But I also want the option to filter these extensions out so
that I can get meaningful non-VM voice traffic reporting.  I will pursue
this more with the call accounting software provider.  Thanks for the
clarification, everyone.

 

Joel Hames 
Senior Director, Information Technology 
Tamalpais Union High School District 
jhames@tamdistrict.org 

From: Scott Voll [mailto:svoll.voip@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:57 AM
To: Hames, Joel
Cc: Wes Sisk; cisco VoIP
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Excluding extensions from CDR reporting

 

if your using CER then 911 should not be an issue as it takes all the
911 calls and you don't really have a 911 or 9.911 route pattern.

 

on the other note.  Are you sure you don't want the VM data.  people
from outside still get VM if no one is there and there for I would see
this as needed info.

 

What are you doing with the reporting software that you don't what VM?

 

Scott

On Dec 27, 2007 10:41 AM, Hames, Joel <jhames@tamdistrict.org> wrote:

Thanks for the clarification and I apologize for the vagueness of the
example.  We are seeing both calls to our voicemail extension (2000) and

to the MWI extensions (2090 and 2091).  We recently disabled reporting
for zero duration calls, but your point is well taken regarding 911
hangups.  I'll check with our implementer to see if our Emergency
Responder installation will help offset this loss of detail.  As for the
voicemail extension itself (2000) that is logging all calls transferred
to VM, I'll work with RSI again to see what they can do to help filter 
out this information for reporting.


Joel Hames
Senior Director, Information Technology
Tamalpais Union High School District
jhames@tamdistrict.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Sisk [mailto:wsisk@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:32 AM
To: Hames, Joel
Cc: cisco VoIP
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Excluding extensions from CDR reporting 

The verbiage provided is vague but i'm going to assume that CDR's for
MWI calls are the crux of the issue.  Those have been an issue before
and are certainly numerous enough to skew reporting.

The way CM is implemented Voicemail and the associated MWI transactions
are calls.  You can set CM service parameter "CDR log calls with zero
duration" to false so that CM does not record CDR for MWI.  However, you


risk losing CDR for other critical calls such as misdials/hangups to 911

where the caller hangs up before 911 service answers.  Most 911
districts consider these prank calls with a quota and begin charging. 

Otherwise, no, there is no way to filter these calls from CDR. The
system dumps out CDR's of all calls.  Parsing, filtering, and
correlating are the job of the "Call Accounting and Reporting" package. 

Just as cisco generates the CDR flat files, RSI has to parse and import
every CDR flat file.  They have equal opportunity to filter these
requests.  As a bonus, RSI can do it without contending for
CPU/Memory/DiskIO that would otherwise be used for processing your 
actual calls.  It's a rather classic example of production vs.
reporting.

/Wes

Hames, Joel wrote:
> We have a new CCM5.1 installation, so I may ask a few basic questions
as
> we work through our first deployment.  At the moment, we have 
> implemented RSI's Call Accounting system and have noticed that our
> voicemail extension skews all of our reports significantly.  RSI
claims
> that this is a cisco configuration issue and that calls to that 
> extension should not be passed to the call accounting system.  Our
> installer claims that there is no way to filter out reporting to
certain
> extensions.
>
> Does anyone have experience with this? While we can certainly ignore 
the
> reports of calls inbound and outbound to that extension, I'd like to
> clean this up as much as possible.  The graphs of call lengths and
call
> costs would be much more meaningful without extraneous information 
like
> this.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Joel Hames
> Senior Director, Information Technology
> Tamalpais Union High School District
> jhames@tamdistrict.org 
>
>  ________________________________________
_______
> 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

 

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]