Call Forward settings/Applying CSS

Unanswered Question
Dec 6th, 2007

We seem to have an issue with call forwards at the moment.

Running CM version 4.1(3), the call forwards wont work unless we specify the calling search space on the call forward setting. Even though this will be the same calling search space thats currently applied to the phone.

Is this a known issue? Or just the way its designed to work? Surely the forwards could look up the CSS of the phone and route calls via that, without having to apply the CSS on the call forward setting itself.

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
sadbulali Thu, 12/13/2007 - 07:55

Line CSS is not considered when doing a Call Forward. CSS has to be configured under Call Forward settings.

The secondary CSS for CFA combines with the current CSS for CFA in order to allow the support of the alternate CSS system configuration. When CFA is activated, only the primary and secondary CSS for CFA get used to validate the CFA destination and redirect the call to the CFA destination. If these fields are empty, the null CSS gets used.

The combination of the line CSS and device CSS no longer gets used when the CSS for CFA is None. Only the CSS fields that are configured in the primary CSS for CFA and secondary CSS for CFA fields get used. If CFA is activated from the phone, the CFA destination gets validated by the use of the CSS for CFA and the secondary CSS for CFA, and the CFA destination gets written to the database. When the CFA is activated, the CFA destination always gets validated against the CSS for CFA and the secondary CSS for CFA.

allan.thomas Thu, 12/13/2007 - 08:45

This is a very good question?

The CSS behaviour has changed in CUCM version 5.x/6.x as mentioned in the previous post. If no CFA CSS has been specifiied, the null CSS will be used in such circumstances.

However, ordinarily prior to version 5.x it was not necessary to specify CSS as both the line and device css would be used for CFA.

Incidentally have you upgraded to SR5 recently? Another thread had similar problems which appear to follow an upgrade to SR5.

If this is the case verify with TAC whether the CSS behaviour has changed in SR5. There does not appear to any other explaination for this change.




This Discussion