Calls won't go to directory handler in Unity 7 with extension

Unanswered Question
Oct 17th, 2009
User Badges:
  • Silver, 250 points or more
  • Community Spotlight Award,

    Best Publication, November 2015

Unity 7 installation with ES21 installed.

Created directory handler, and assigned an extension. Calls into system that should go to that extension are answered by unity with default greeting. If you hit the extension number to go to that handler, it says it doesn't know the extension.

You can create a call handler with the extension and have it go to the directory handler, but that isn't the way this is supposed to work.

Has anyone else seen this or resolved it?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (2 ratings)
Bradford Magnani Sun, 10/18/2009 - 18:56
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,


Have you confirmed with Call Viewer what digits are actually being sent to Unity? If you're hitting something like a CTI route point, make sure the rp's extension matches that of the directory handler's.

Another way this can be done is by creating a forwarded routing rule in Unity to match certain ANI's or Dialed #'s, etc.

Hope that helps,


Clifford McGlamry Sun, 10/18/2009 - 19:29
User Badges:
  • Silver, 250 points or more
  • Community Spotlight Award,

    Best Publication, November 2015

Digits match. Set the extension on the default directory handler, and the same thing happens. It drops to the default unity greeting. Call viewer shows the correct extension was passed. If you then punch in the extension, it goes to the directory handler.

I think we have a bug.

lindborg Mon, 10/19/2009 - 05:15
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,

I actually don't think Unity or Connection has ever routed inbound calls to interview handlers or name lookup handlers on forwarded calls. I think only call hanlders can be targets (subscribers are tied to a "primary" call handler for this same purpose). The conversation it uses when doing the attempt transfer route is "PHTransfer" or "PHGreeting" (depending on if you are trying to ring the phone or go to the greeting). "PH" here is Phone Hanlder which is the old name for modern call handlers. Interview Handlers and Directory Handler use different conversation names.

Pretty sure that's how it supposed to work but I'll ping the conversation folks to be sure.

lindborg Mon, 10/19/2009 - 05:24
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,

yeah, got confirmation.

the forwarding rule in question is the system added "attempt forward to greeting". so the forwarding number is looked up among all call handlers and subscribers extensions (both primary and alternate). If a match is found the PHGreeting conversation is launched for that call handler.

Only call handlers have greetings - interview handlers and name lookup handlers do not - the rule is specific to call handlers (and as noted subcribers have a special "primary" call handler for this).

You can of course make a call handler "boomerang" like you noted, or a routing rule to go directly to the directory handler if you like (you can employ a range of extensions for this purpose so you don't have to make a pile of routing rules if you have many for instance).

James Hawkins Wed, 11/04/2009 - 07:51
User Badges:
  • Gold, 750 points or more

Thanks for the response.

This does however beg the question why do interview and directory handlers have a box for extension given that it seems pretty useless.

What is the best way of doing the routing? Call routing rules seem simpler than using call handlers but is there a limit on how many can be configured and does configuring lots of them slow down the operation of unity for normal subscribers?

lindborg Wed, 11/04/2009 - 08:31
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,

The extensions there are optional and can be used to dial from the auto attendnant (i.e. you can dial "444" from the opening greeting and be routed to a directory handler assigned "444"). That's really their only purpose for name lookup handlers and interviewers (call handlers also used to requrie them for remote administration purposes but that's no longer the case).

Routing rules or call handlers work - you can have many thousands of call handlers in your database and it's not going to hurt performance much if at all - not sure how many you're talking about here. If it's just a few dozen I'd go with direct routing rules myself. If it's a lot more than that then call handlers may be a better option - the administration interface for routing rules starts to get pretty awkward when you get more than 100 entries for instance.


This Discussion