[asterisk-users] CDR Desgin

[regs at kinetix.gr]

If we only implement A->D cdr we lose information.
On the other hand, if we implement all 3 CDRs for one call we can
either use this info or ignore it and act like its not there. The first way
is prohibiting for some users. The second one can match any scenario
with none to little effort.

Steve Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-11-22 at 04:02 +0000, Grey Man wrote:
>   
>> I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread to discuss the design
>> of the Asterisk CDR mechanism. The discussion has been kindly
>> initiated by murf putting together a proposal:
>> http://svn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/team/murf/RFCs.
>>
>> After reading the proposal I still don't think it's the right way to
>> go. To my mind adding more channel variables increases the complexity
>> in a situation that is already overly so. I think it's a mistake to
>> try and think about all the different call scenarios and come up with
>> little tricks for the more complicated ones. There will always be
>> something missed; app_shotgun initiates calls to 100 random numbers
>> and as soon as three or more calls are answered it will start randonly
>> transferring them amongst each other at 2 second intervals.
>>
>> I think it's important to clarify at the outset what a CDR should be.
>> The most fundamental requirement for CDRs is that they accurately
>> record the following pieces of information for EVERY call entering or
>> leaving the system (note every means every and not; "channel" calls
>> but not "peer" calls).
>>
>> 1. Destination (aka as A Number)
>> 2. AccountCode (aka as B Number)
>> 3. Call Start Time (answer time),
>> 4. Duration.
>>
>> Of course adding extra information can be very useful and I'm not
>> proposing any fields be removed from the current implementation
>> (although for pity's sake one change that should be made it to use a
>> GUID/UUID for the CDR's uniqueid and save endless confusion).
>>
>> People that really do need verbose or enhanced CDRs to do things like
>> tracking a call's flow as it travels in and out of queues, parking
>> lots etc. would be better off using AMI or the new CEL and not CDRs.
>> At the very least if problems arise with their call flow tracking they
>> will still be able to rely on the accuracy of the CDRs to piece it
>> altogether to work out what's going wrong.
>>
>> My proposal of creating a 1-to-1 relationship between CDRs and
>> Asterisk channels already exsits but somewhere along the line it's
>> going awry. As an experiment, and to actually do something instead of
>> continually moaning about it, I started commenting out the blocks of
>> code in res_featrures.c and sip_channel.c that muck around with the
>> channel CDRs when a transfer occurs. The results of that were that the
>> CDRs for blind and attended transfers actually got better! They're
>> still not quite right but are pretty close with only one CDR on each
>> having a wrong detstination.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Greyman.
>>     
>
> Greyman--
>
> For the moment, let's not worry about the implementation. Let's
> get consensus on the spec first. In the scenario, where A calls B,
> B xfers A to C, C xfers A to D, or some such similar scenario,
> half the world wants a single CDR for A, from the time it started,
> to the time it hung up with D. The other half wants A->B's dial and
> bridge,
> a cdr for A & C's bridge, a CDR for A & D's bridge, and mayhaps some
> CDRs
> to describe the xfers, where B xfers A to C and C xfers A to D.
>
> My document is pointing in the former direction, and either we need to
> spec both, or pick one.
>
> murf
>
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20081125/f09a6bcb/attachment.htm