[asterisk-users] CDR Rewrite -- Questions to the users

[Benny Amorsen]

Steve Murphy <murf at digium.com> writes:

> Which of the two would you see being useful to you?

"Leg based", as far as I can see, because that looks like the only way
to bill transfers differently depending on which end did the transfer.

Possibly "Simple" on the Asterisk systems where we forbid transfers.

> Is there Yet Another CDR system you would like to see instead?
> How would/should it work?

"Leg based" looks good.

> Will both fulfil the requirements of CALEA?

We're not yet operating in a jurisdiction where CALEA applies. It
looks good enough for the jurisdictions we operate in, possibly apart
from the transfer issues further down, but I am certainly not a
lawyer.

> It's been proposed that we implement just the Simple 
> CDR now, and it be introduced in some 1.6.x (or higher)
> release.  In that release, the existing CDR system would be
> deprecated, and in some "futurer" release the "old" (now current)
> CDR system would be dropped entirely. What do you
> think? Are we high on drugs, or what?

I need this functionality for transfers, and I don't think "Simple"
provides it:

A calls B: A pays for the whole duration for A => B
B transfers to C: B pays for B => C, A is still paying A => B

If it was A who transferred the call instead:

A calls B: A pays for the whole duration for A => B
A transfers to C: A pays for A => C, and A is still paying A => B
B and C get to talk for free, while A pays twice.

This should apply whether transfers are attended (soft), unattended
(hard) or caused by SIP redirections before answering. Ideally it
should also be possible to simulate SIP-like redirections in the
dialplan with the same CDR behaviour.


/Benny