No subject
Fri Sep 2 03:59:05 CDT 2011
A. either, there is a bug in libpri/dahdi as though pri debug shows 2 calls
are treated the same (ie 2 different calls print the same output), in fact
there is still a difference between them and this difference, in this
specific case, change the way the CallerID is presented (for that I've got
an pri intensive debug record at hand).
B. either, the network behaves inconsistently : with the same input from
Asterisk, it will either show or not show the CallerID though this data is
passed to him.
2. As I'm not using latest libpri and dahdi versions, my plan is to update
to 1.4.12 and 2.5.0.2 without changing my asterisk 1.6.1.18 version and try
again.
Any comment on that particular mix ?
3. I don't believe much in alternative A.
What do you think ?
Suggestions are welcome.
Regards
--bcaec5315085ba919404b32c5f7b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,<br><br>Revisiting this old thread, following Richard's suggestio=
n, I modified Asterisk config so that it would set RDNIS for every forwarde=
d call.<br><br>I kept at hand, the results gathered in another test session=
:<br>
the output of a "successful" call (with appropriate CallerID) and=
the output of an unsuccessful one.<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2011/=
11/8 Olivier <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:oza_4h07 at yahoo.fr">oza=
_4h07 at yahoo.fr</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi,<br><br>As pro=
mised, here is a follow up on my quest to get CallerID correctly presented =
when forwarding calls to cellphones.<br>
<br>Here is a reminder of the issue at hand:<br><br>Alice (GSM handset) cal=
ls Bob (ISDN-connected Asterisk extension) which forwards to Cory (GSM hand=
set)<br>
What I would like to get is to see Alice's number (not Bob's number=
) presented to Cory.<br>Sometimes, I get Alice's number, sometimes, I g=
et Bob's number (new findings from last sunday trials).<br>And of cours=
e, if Daniel or Eric would call Bob, the CallerID number presented to Cory =
would either be Daniel's number, Eric's number or Bob's number =
depending on a root cause I'm looking after for several days now.<br>
<br><br><br>To check if CallerID is filtered or controlled by Telco, I orig=
inated calls from Asterisk using hand crafted caller ids: any CallerID was =
correctly presented.<br>So I originally thought the root cause I'm afte=
r is a telco equipment switching ANI and CID.<br>
But a close look at some last trials output makes me asking for opinions
from this list readers.<br><br>Here follows, the anonymized (and hand inden=
ted) output of command PRI debug command.<br>I focused on the end of call s=
etup dialog.<br><br>For the successfully presented call, the output is:<br>
[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > [6c 0b <a href=3D"tel=
:21%2083%2037%2038%2036" value=3D"+12183373836" target=3D"_blank">21 83 37 =
38 36</a> XX XX XX XX XX XX]<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dah=
di.c: > Calling Number (len=3D13) [ Ext: 0=A0 TON: National Number (2)=
=A0 NPI: ISDN/Telephony Numbering Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)<br>
[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Presentation: Pre=
sentation allowed of network provided number (3)=A0 '78649XXXX' ]<b=
r>[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > [70 0b 80 30 36 37 =
31 XX XX XX XX XX XX]<br>
[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > Called Number (len=3D=
13) [ Ext: 1=A0 TON: Unknown Number Type (0)=A0 NPI: Unknown Number Plan (0=
)=A0 '067100XXXX' ]<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahd=
i.c: > [74 0e 21 01 8f 33 33 33 34 34 XX XX XX XX XX XX]<br>
[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > Redirecting Number (l=
en=3D16) [ Ext: 0=A0 TON: National Number (2)=A0 NPI: ISDN/Telephony Number=
ing Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi=
.c: >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ext: 0=A0 Presentation: Presentation permitted, us=
er number passed network screening (1)<br>
[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ext: =
1=A0 Reason: Forwarded unconditionally (15)<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[=
27954] chan_dahdi.c:=A0=A0 '3334436XXXX' ]<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] V=
ERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > [a1]<br>
[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > Sending Complete (len=
=3D 1)<br><br><br></blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"b=
order-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; paddin=
g-left: 1ex;">
For the unsuccessfully presented call, the output is:<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:25:29=
] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c: > [6c 0b <a href=3D"tel:21%2083%2036%2037=
%2038" value=3D"+12183363738" target=3D"_blank">21 83 36 37 38</a> XX XX XX=
XX XX XX]<br>
[Nov=A0 6 09:25:29] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c: > Calling Number (len=
=3D13) [ Ext: 0=A0 TON: National Number (2)=A0 NPI: ISDN/Telephony Numberin=
g Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:25:29] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c=
: >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0 Presentation: Presentation allowed of network provided number (3)=
=A0 '67854XXXX' ]<br>
[Nov=A0 6 09:25:29] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c: > [70 0b 80 30 36 37 31=
XX XX XX XX XX XX]<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:25:29] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c: >=
; Called Number (len=3D13) [ Ext: 1=A0 TON: Unknown Number Type (0)=A0 NPI:=
Unknown Number Plan (0)=A0 '067100XXXX' ]<br>
[Nov=A0 6 09:25:29] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c: > [a1]<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:=
25:29] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c: > Sending Complete (len=3D 1)<br><br=
><br>Am I correctly interpreting when saying that in the successful call, A=
sterisk is sending a [74 0e 21 01 8f 33 33 33 34 34 XX XX XX XX XX XX] mes=
sage which is not otherwise sent ?<br>
What can explains this difference ?<br>Is this something I can (should) con=
trol ?<br><br>For reference:<br>dahdi show version <br>DAHDI Version: SVN-t=
runk-r8853M Echo Canceller: OSLEC<br>pri show version <br>libpri version: 1=
.4.10.2<br>
<br><br><br>Regards<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>From another unsuccessful try, I got the followi=
ng (anonymized) output:<br>[Dec=A0
3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: > Calling Number (len=3D13) [
Ext: 0=A0 TON: National Number (2)=A0 NPI: ISDN/Telephony Numbering Plan
(E.164/E.163) (1)<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c:
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0 Presentation: Presentation allowed of
network provided number (3)=A0 '95135XXXX' ]<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32]=
VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: > [70 0b 80 30 36 37 31 30 XX XX XX XX XX]<=
br>[Dec=A0
3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: > Called Number (len=3D13) [
Ext: 1=A0 TON: Unknown Number Type (0)=A0 NPI: Unknown Number Plan (0)=A0
'06710XXXXX' ]<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: &=
gt; [74 0e 21 01 8f 33 33 33 34 34 33 XX XX XX XX XX]<br>[Dec=A0
3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: > Redirecting Number
(len=3D16) [ Ext: 0=A0 TON: National Number (2)=A0 NPI: ISDN/Telephony
Numbering Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_=
dahdi.c:<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ext: 0=A0 Presentation: Presentation perm=
itted, user number passed network screening (1)<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERB=
OSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c:<br>
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ext: 1=A0 Reason: Forwarded unconditionally (15)<br>[=
Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c:=A0=A0 '333443XXXXX' =
]<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: > [a1]<br>[Dec=A0 3=
09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: > Sending Complete (len=3D 1)<br>
<br>1. Am I correct not seeing any meaningful difference with the successfu=
l one above ?<br><br>From this, I would conclude by:<br>A.
either, there is a bug in libpri/dahdi as though pri debug shows 2
calls are treated the same (ie 2 different calls print the same
output), in fact there is still a difference between them and this
difference, in this specific case, change the way the CallerID is
presented (for that I've got an pri intensive debug record at hand).<br=
>B. either, the network behaves inconsistently : with the
same input from Asterisk, it will either show or not show the CallerID
though this data is passed to him.<br><br>2. As I'm not using latest li=
bpri and dahdi versions, my plan is to update to 1.4.12 and 2.5.0.2 without=
changing my asterisk 1.6.1.18 version and try again.<br>Any comment on tha=
t particular mix ?<br>
<br><br>3. I don't believe much in alternative A.<br>What do you think =
?<br>Suggestions are welcome.<br><br>Regards<br>
--bcaec5315085ba919404b32c5f7b--
More information about the asterisk-users
mailing list