Translation pattern and called party name

Unanswered Question
Mar 26th, 2010

hi everyone

The question is: why called party name is dispalyed when DN is dialed directly and is not displayed when it dialed throught translation pattern? And is there any way to correct this situation?

My CCM is 4.2.3 It seems like there is no suitable option in Service Parameters( Thank you in advance

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 2 (1 ratings)
CHRIS CHARLEBOIS Fri, 03/26/2010 - 11:13

Where is Called Party Name displayed for you now?  Do you mean Calling Party Name?  What does it look like now in both situations, and how do you want it to appear?

Volodymyr Morskyy Fri, 03/26/2010 - 11:28

Phone 1 can call Phone 2 directly on number 5555 or throught translation

pattern 6.5555 which discards predot digits and then call phone 5555.

Let the Alerting Name on phone 2 be "User 2".

There are two scenarious:

1 When I dial 5555 from phone 1 I can see on my phone phone "User 2" and DN of phone 2

2 When I dial 6.5555 from phone 1 I can see only DN of phone 2. So Alerting name field is not dispalyed.

Aaron Harrison Fri, 03/26/2010 - 11:35


What do you have the 'Calling Name Presentation' setting on the translation pattern set to?

Try setting that to 'Allowed'.



Please rate helpful posts..

Volodymyr Morskyy Fri, 03/26/2010 - 12:32

It is set to Default which is allowed in my case(I've checked in Service


The thing you are telling will fix another problem. Your option (taken from "help":

Choose whether you want the Cisco Unified CallManager to allow or restrict the display of the calling party's phone number on the called party's phone display for this translation pattern.

I have a different trouble: Called party number only is displayed on calling party's display when calling throught Translation pattern while calling directly to DN shows both DN and alerting name fields on my display.

CHRIS CHARLEBOIS Fri, 03/26/2010 - 11:41

Well, I can tell you that it works as you would like it to work in version 6.1.4.  I would chalk this up to a software version that is 4 major revisions out of date and hasn't even been patched in a year and a half.


This Discussion