[Asterisk-Users] No Caller Name sent from Asterisk over National or DMS100 PRI to a Norstar MICS?

[Alfred Nurnberger]

There is a bugreport open about * when set as PRI_NET sending the CNAME 
field  in the DISPLAY IE instead of the FACILITY IE.
Look at bugs.digium.com, I don't rmember the bugreport number.

-Alfred.

Kris Boutilier wrote:

>I have a PRI link up and running between Asterisk and a Nortel Norstar MICS
>v4.1 . I'm having a problem getting the textual Caller Name across the link
>from Ast to Ns, however numeric Caller ID arrives and displays fine. From Ns
>to Ast both elements come through fine. I'm forcing dummy values for testing
>using:
>
> exten => s,1,SetCIDName(Test)
> exten => s,2,SetCallerID(1234561234)
> exten => s,3,Dial(zap/g1/${ARG1},15)
>
>I've tried switchtype=national and dms100 (adjusting accordingly on Ns) with
>no change. zapata.conf is currently:
>
> ; Norstar #2 (Wharf Road)
> context=in-t1nstar
> group=1
> usecallerid=yes
> hidecallerid=no
> usecallingpres=no
> switchtype=dms100
> pridialplan=local
> signalling=pri_net
> channel => 1-23
>
>The SETUP frame from Ast contains:
>
>  
>
>>Protocol Discriminator: Q.931 (8)  len=40
>>Call Ref: len= 2 (reference 2/0x2) (Originator)
>>Message type: SETUP (5)
>>[04 03 80 90 a2]
>>Bearer Capability (len= 5) [ Ext: 1  Q.931 Std: 0  Info transfer
>>    
>>
>capability: Speech (0)
>  
>
>>                             Ext: 1  Trans mode/rate: 64kbps, circuit-mode
>>    
>>
>(16)
>  
>
>>                             Ext: 1  User information layer 1: u-Law (34)
>>[18 03 a1 83 81]
>>Channel ID (len= 5) [ Ext: 1  IntID: Implicit, PRI Spare: 0, Preferred
>>    
>>
>Dchan: 0
>  
>
>>                       ChanSel: Reserved
>>                      Ext: 1  Coding: 0   Number Specified   Channel Type:
>>    
>>
>3
>  
>
>>                      Ext: 1  Channel: 1 ]
>>[1e 02 80 83]
>>Progress Indicator (len= 4) [ Ext: 1  Coding: CCITT (ITU) standard (0) 0:
>>    
>>
>0   Location: User (0)
>  
>
>>                              Ext: 1  Progress Description: Calling
>>    
>>
>equipment is non-ISDN. (3) ]
>  
>
>>[6c 0c 21 80 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34]
>>Calling Number (len=14) [ Ext: 0  TON: National Number (2)  NPI:
>>    
>>
>ISDN/Telephony Numbering Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)
>  
>
>>                          Presentation: Presentation permitted, user
>>    
>>
>number not screened (0) '1234561234' ]
>  
>
>>[70 05 c1 36 31 30 31]
>>Called Number (len= 7) [ Ext: 1  TON: Subscriber Number (4)  NPI:
>>    
>>
>ISDN/Telephony Numbering Plan (E.164/E.163) (1) '6101' ]
>
>Which doesn't seem to even contain the CIDName... On the other hand, the
>SETUP frame from the Ns contains:
>
>< Protocol Discriminator: Q.931 (8)  len=56
>< Call Ref: len= 2 (reference 1/0x1) (Originator)
>< Message type: SETUP (5)
>< [04 03 80 90 a2]
>< Bearer Capability (len= 5) [ Ext: 1  Q.931 Std: 0  Info transfer
>capability: Speech (0)
><                              Ext: 1  Trans mode/rate: 64kbps, circuit-mode
>(16)
><                              Ext: 1  User information layer 1: u-Law (34)
>< [18 03 a1 83 97]
>< Channel ID (len= 5) [ Ext: 1  IntID: Implicit, PRI Spare: 0, Preferred
>Dchan: 0
><                        ChanSel: Reserved
><                       Ext: 1  Coding: 0   Number Specified   Channel Type:
>3
><                       Ext: 1  Channel: 23 ]
>< [28 0b b1 53 43 52 44 20 4b 72 69 73 42]
>< Display (len=11) Charset: 31 [ SCRD KrisB ]
>< [6c 0c 21 80 36 30 34 38 38 35 36 38 30 38]
>< Calling Number (len=14) [ Ext: 0  TON: National Number (2)  NPI:
>ISDN/Telephony Numbering Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)
><                           Presentation: Presentation permitted, user
>number not screened (0) '6048856808' ]
>< [70 0c 80 39 36 30 34 38 38 35 36 38 30 38]
>< Called Number (len=14) [ Ext: 1  TON: Unknown Number Type (0)  NPI:
>Unknown Number Plan (0) '96048856808' ]
>
>Which has the textual ID in the 'Display' element... However I understand
>from http://resource.intel.com/telecom/support/tnotes/tnbyos/2000/tn033.htm
>that there is no definitive standard for transmitting the name.
>
>So, should even I be expecting Ast to put the name on the wire when it's
>originating? 
>
>Kris Boutilier
>Information Systems Coordinator
>Sunshine Coast Regional District
>
>_______________________________________________
>Asterisk-Users mailing list
>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>  
>