Incoming Caller ID issue over analogue exchange line

Unanswered Question
Jun 19th, 2008

Hi,


Carrying out CCME install in the UK. PSTN connections provided via 4 analogue lines through FXO ports. User phones are IP 7961 phones.


Problem is that for incoming calls the caller id does not display on the IP Phone. Displays as unknown. I've tried different combinations for the caller-id option under FXO ports. None of this works (see snipet below).


voice-port 0/1/0

supervisory disconnect anytone

cptone GB

connection plar 3416

impedance complex2

description PSTN Exchange Line (FXO)

caller-id alerting ring 4

!

voice-port 0/1/1

supervisory disconnect anytone

cptone GB

connection plar 3638

impedance complex2

description PSTN Exchange Line (FXO)

caller-id enable

!


Please advise on how this problem can be resolved?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 3 (2 ratings)
Loading.
Paolo Bevilacqua Thu, 06/19/2008 - 10:06

Which exact IOS are you using?

Also have to tell you that unfortunately analog CLID on cisco routers is not 100% reliable, I've seen various cases like your.

gsidhu Thu, 06/19/2008 - 10:50

Thanks for advice. I'll ask customer to upgrade and get back to you next week.

gsidhu Fri, 06/27/2008 - 06:32


Hi,


Upgrading the UC520 did not resolve the problem.


Howver I changed the config as follows and this resolved the issue:


supervisory disconnect dualtone mid-call


battery-reversal answer


input gain 3


output attenuation -3


cptone GB


connection plar opx 3501


impedance complex2



Paolo Bevilacqua Fri, 06/27/2008 - 06:56

Not sure the reason why the low rating to my post of appreciation above.


The fact that upgrading the box (many many issues are resolved this way) did not resolve your issue does not mean the suggestion was not given with the honest intent to help, as all my post on this forum are.



gsidhu Fri, 06/27/2008 - 07:11

Hi,


Your intent to help me is not in question.


I was hoping you would have been able to find that this type of issue is configuration related.






Paolo Bevilacqua Fri, 06/27/2008 - 07:18

But I was not, and I ended being low rated.


Fair enough, wish you good luck and an attitude improvement.

gsidhu Sun, 06/29/2008 - 22:07


I shared the configuration that resolved the issue with you and anyone viewing this thread so I don't understand your comments about 'attitude improvement'?


The advise you gave me came no where close to fixing the issue. If you had investigated the configuration then (depending on the advice) you would have got a higher mark.


There was no need to make this personal.



Paolo Bevilacqua Sun, 06/29/2008 - 22:17

It is not a personal matter, but one of fairness, so let me answer since you keep dragging this.


I haven't the ability to diagnose correctly 100% of the cases, given configuration or or not, plus I do that freely in for anyone with the best intent, so please accept these facts before anything else.


The only problem I have it that when I thanked you for sharing the configuration for something that I could not solve, got low rated.


As I said before, fair enough, I think you can move on but your attitude problem remains, just consider the above an your replies insisting to be in the right. Again, if you think so, fine with me.


Regards, Paolo.



gsidhu Sun, 06/29/2008 - 22:23

As far as I'm concerend it's not my attitude that been the problem here.


I do agree that we should move on...

Actions

This Discussion