Solved: CME 4.2 external caller Id for non-DID related internal extensions

gerheauserm · ‎03-27-2008

I have CME 4.2 on a 2851 with a PRI to local carrier. Have a limited amount of DID's on the PRI, so only about half of the dn's are associated to a DID. For those that are not, the caller ID passed to the carrier is that of the internal extension and the local user name for that DN, which is not acceptable since some of those numbers are that same as private sector phone numbers. Is there a way to mask a group of related DN caller Id from calls on internal numbers, so that when they go across the PRI, they get changed to a common name/number, but retain thier normal internal/name when making in house calls?

paolo bevilacqua · ‎03-27-2008

The problem with manipulating names is that requires a custom tcl/iver script incoming to each ephone-dn and that opens up a lot of issues in itself.

You can remove the name altogether with:

interface serial x/y:23

no isdn outgoing display-ie

So the best way would be to ask telco to overwrite calling name for all calls.

Thanks for the nice rating and good luck!

View solution in original post

paolo bevilacqua · ‎03-27-2008

The easier way is translation-profile, but that requires you can pattern all the numbers in with 15 rules:

voice translation-rule 100

rule 1 /670[1-4]/ /555/

rule 2 /681./ /555/

...

voice translation-profile pri-out

translate calling 100

interface serial 0/0/0:23

voice-port 0/0/0:23

translate outgoing pri-out

name is a bit more complicated, does it now shows whatever name is set on the ephone-dn ?

gerheauserm · ‎03-27-2008

Yes, right now the calelr ID shows the local user name as well, mgmt wants it to be that of the company. I may just say to heck with it, and since the site has a wan connection to my core where I have CM, take them off of CME and migrate to CM and make that router a gateway with the PRI an endpoint.

If not too much trouble, can you show me the config needed for the name conversion so I know what kind of added work I am looking at?

paolo bevilacqua · ‎03-27-2008