[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0011849]: Missing CDR's for Transfers

[Asterisk Bug Tracker]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=11849 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                greyvoip
Assigned To:                murf
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Asterisk
Issue ID:                   11849
Category:                   CDR/General
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   major
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     assigned
Asterisk Version:           1.4.17 
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): N/A 
SVN Revision (number only!):  
Disclaimer on File?:        N/A 
Request Review:              
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2008-01-26 11:11 CST
Last Modified:              2008-12-01 14:53 CST
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    Missing CDR's for Transfers
Description: 
At the moment there is one CDR generated per generic bridge. This tends not
to create any problems when the bridge has been created by something like:

SIP User -> Asterisk -> PSTN

The CDR generated will have the PSTN number as the destination and the SIP
User's accountcode.

When a transfer is undertaken the one CDR per generic bridge approach
breaks down. An example call flow for a blind transfer is:

SIP User -> Asterisk -> PSTN
PSTN <- Asterisk -> PSTN (this is after the user has blind transferred the
first call to a second PSTN number)

At the moment Asterisk will correctly generate a CDR for the first call
leg but for the second call leg there is a problem. For the sconed call leg
both ends of the bridge are now billable but as Asterisk only generates a
single CDR per bridge one of the legs will not get billed. 

A straight forward fix (at least architecturally) would be to generate a
CDR for each end of the bridge instead of combining both ends into a single
CDR. It would mean some extra CDR's for the standard SIP User -> PSTN call
but it's a lot easier to filter out CDR's to ignore than it is to try and
work out how to handle ones that are missing.

I've classified this as major since it's costing me (and other providers)
money every time a user does a transfer :).
======================================================================
Relationships       ID      Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
related to          0013892 After upgrading from 1.4.21.2 to 1.4.22...
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0095648) murf (administrator) - 2008-12-01 14:53
 http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=11849#c95648 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
OK; The only way we can settle this issue once and for all is literally to
rewrite CDRs. I've come to that firm conclusion. The existing CDR system
is
tightly integrated into the Channel/Peer philosophy, and the problem
almost
insoluble, to generalize to the extent that we have.

The best to way approach this is to generate CDR/leg, where the timing is
from
leg to leg, in conjuction with a 'linkedID', that would tie the legs
together
into a logical call.

I have a spec underway that you can fetch via 
svn co http://svn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/team/murf/RFCs
called CDRfix2.rfc.txt, the only file in that directory.
Please read it with a critical attitude and a wary eye, and feel
feel to roast it alive. Send me the nitpicks, the gaps and flaws
in thought, the cool nifty new ideas, whatever.
Right now, it's being discussed in the asterisk-users mailing list under 
"CDR Desgin" (pardon the typo) 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2008-12-01 14:53 murf           Note Added: 0095648                          
======================================================================