[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 
Regression:                 No 
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): N/A 
SVN Revision (number only!):  
Request Review:              
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2008-01-26 11:11 CST
Last Modified:              2009-01-28 07:28 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...
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0098953) frawd (reporter) - 2009-01-28 07:28
 http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=11849#c98953 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Hi and sorry for not answering before.

I have been doing many and wannabe patches (refreshing my C skills), and I
could make my idea work perfectly for attended transfers in SIP. I tried
with dozens of chained attended transfers and the result was the expected
one.

The problem that stopped me was for blind transfers. What asterisk does in
that case (still talking about SIP) is to hangup the transferer and running
an asyncronous goto on the transferee, like if the transferee was doing a
new call with the same channel ID.
It then seems quite impossible to inherit CDRs in such case, as the
channel is reseted after the goto (and all CDR inherited are then lost).

More or less, it means that the original "light" job is converting itself
in something much bigger and likely to introduce bugs and such. I will then
need more time to investigate and patch that thing, hoping that nothing is
really impossible. Sorry for breaking expectations :-( 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2009-01-28 07:28 frawd          Note Added: 0098953                          
======================================================================