Unity Auto Attendant Call Transfer

Unanswered Question
Apr 5th, 2007

Set up Auto Attendant on Unity 4.2 and CM4.1

Set up the CTI on CM and CallHandler, that works fine.

Within the AA I have set up the user input such to go to another Callhandler.

e.g press 1 to go to XYZ location.

Once in the new call handler they are then prompted to enter the number they wish to call. So far so good.

But when I enter the number to call its says it cannot be connected.

I have added the number 6123* in the Call routing and restrictions to support this, this then should route to CM and onto the gateway. I can see the DTMF information being placed in the traces on Unity but the call will not transfer and does not go back to CM.

What am I doing wrong or what do I need to set up to allow a call to an external number

Many Thanks

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 4.3 (4 ratings)
Rob Huffman Thu, 04/05/2007 - 05:41

Hi Paul,

Is 6123 a number on CCM or something used to route externally? Is there another entry higher up in the restriction table that 6123* might be matching that is not set to "Allow this String" - Yes

You can modify the predefined restriction tables, and you can create up to 100 new ones. You can also add up to 100 dial strings to a table. New dial strings are automatically inserted into the restriction table as Dial String 0. Note that the order of the dial strings is very important because Cisco Unity sequentially compares a phone number to the call patterns in the restriction table, starting with Dial String 0. If a number matches more than one call pattern, the number is handled according to the first call pattern it matches.

From this excellent doc;


Have you tried ????* in the Restriction table just as a test to see if you can route callers.

Let us know,


bigcappa1 Thu, 04/05/2007 - 07:02


Thanks for the swift reply. The number I dial for instance is 63451234. I have set up a permission in the restriction table for 6345* and permitted this.

In CM is a router pattern on the gateway for 6XXXXXXX, this is then routed into the customer PBX and then out over their VOIP VPN for international calling.

I know the 6XXXXXXX pattern work as when I call using an extension on CM withoug going through the Unity it is fine.

Its just for some reason Unity wont forward the 63451234 back to CM when the user inputs the digits, I just keep getting the You are aubale to dail this number message.

I have entered 6 of these 6XXX* patterns in Unity 9the customer didnt want to just do 6*

These are the first 6 numbers in the restriction rules, then I have the default barred 9 patterns.

When I do a (Macro) trace on the call the system sees the DTNF digits but does not seemt o know what to do with them. Hence the reason for the post, was wondering if I had done somethign wrong?

Dont know if this helps


Rob Huffman Thu, 04/05/2007 - 12:49

Hi Paul,

The number in your example 63451234 wouldn't you need;

6345????* - Allow this string - Yes


bigcappa1 Mon, 04/09/2007 - 03:13


I though by using the the * wildcard then I would not need to specify the amount of digits, according to the Unity docs the ? is any single digit, the * is any one or more digits.

Would the ability to dial back out through callManager have naything to do with the restriction of the Ports as when installed using the wizard and Cisco Guides they instruct then Ports with the expcetion of the pilot to be in their own Partition and CSS to eliminate Toll Fraud etc.



Rob Huffman Mon, 04/09/2007 - 10:13

Hi Paul,

That could definately be the problem. Can you try putting a phone in using the same CSS and see if you can dial the applicable number. I have seen similar problems before.You could also change one the ports to a known CSS (that has the proper dial-out access)

Hope this helps!


bigcappa1 Mon, 04/16/2007 - 01:42


I think that has sorted it, should have thought about it i bit better i suppose but i wasnt responsible for the building the phone system just adding Unity (No excuse I know).

But thank you ver much for you help and support




This Discussion